NEUROSCIENCE TO MUSIC EDUCATION: AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT

RESEARCH, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PEDAGOGY AND POLICY

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of Music, Theatre, and Dance

California State University, Los Angeles

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Music

By

Erica Lynn Shelton Gilstrap

June 2015
 2015

Erica Lynn Shelton Gilstrap

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2
The thesis of Erica Lynn Shelton Gilstrap is approved.

Emily Moss, Committee Chair

Sbastien Valle

Jeffrey Benedict

John M. Kennedy, Department Chair

California State University, Los Angeles

June 2015

3
 ABSTRACT

Neuroscience to Music Education: An Overview of Current Research, and Implications

for Pedagogy and Policy

By

Erica Lynn Shelton Gilstrap

This thesis provides an overview of the development of neuroscience, educational

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

of music with societal benefits of music, policy may contribute to a mandatory

curriculum for music education. Additionally, the future of music education has a need

for a designated field of neuromusical education, which translates neuroscientific

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

platform for the thesis-writing process.

Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Kyle Gilstrap. Your professional

experience with and love for research provided me welcomed opportunities to better

articulate my thoughts and concepts with exciting contributions. I am grateful to have a

husband that I admire and inspires me to be my very best.

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

Neuroscience to Cognitive Neuroscience..........................................................5

Educational Neuroscience (Neuroeducation)....................................................6

Bridging Neuroscience and Education......................................................8

Concerns...................................................................................................9

Neuromyths.............................................................................................14

Current Position of Educational Neuroscience.......................................18

Neuromusical Research...................................................................................20

Current Position of Neuromusical Research...........................................22

Benefits of Musical Education................................................................25

Concerns.................................................................................................29

Ethics ......................................................................................................30

Musical-based Neuromyths....................................................................31

Opportunities...........................................................................................31

6
 Implications and Applications in Music Education................................33

3. Method ................................................................................................................36

4. Discussion and Recommendations.......................................................................38

Limitations.......................................................................................................43

Recommendations............................................................................................44

5. Conclusion............................................................................................................48

References..........................................................................................................................50

7
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Discipline and sub-disciplines in Mind, Brain, and Education Science..................8

2. Growth of Peer-Reviewed Neuromusical Studies.................................................23

8
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Rationale

Research from the fields of cognitive neuroscience, educational neuroscience, and

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

scope of either aesthetic or praxial philosophy concerning critical thinking skills,

increased IQ, and higher achievement scores and performance, which relates to that of

applied researchthe access and uses some part of the research communities'

accumulated theories, knowledge, methods, and techniques (Hodges, 1997). However,

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

directed toward fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of

phenomena and of observable facts without specific application (Hodges, 1997)to

provide answers as to how music exactly achieves these feats. Neuroscientists are now

attempting to provide these answers by using music as a tool to discover how the brain

functions and learns.

Overview

Neuroscience is an interdisciplinary study of science that originally branched

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

education fields use some of the terminology interchangeably, particularly neuroscience

when referring to cognitive neurosciencethe study of brain functions. Hruby (2012)

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.

Educational neuroscience, or neuroeducation, is a recent development and field of

research that incorporates cognitive neuroscience, psychology, and educational pedagogy

methods; a collaboration of interdisciplinary research efforts which has potential to

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

discourses (Fischer et al., 2010).

As neuroscience and educational neuroscience develop, a combination of valid

research exists alongside unintentional misleading information known as neuromyths

misinformation about or oversimplification and overinterpretation of neuroscience

findings (Goswami, 2006; Peterson, 2011). Researchers are now taking extra precautions

with regards to neuromyths to protect the validity of educational neuroscience, such as

continuing research, replicating studies, and collaboration efforts to translate the

scientific language to that which non-scientists can accurately interpret. However, there

are still debates among researchers about whether neuroscience can inform education

practicesas Bruer (1997) famously wrote, it is a bridge too far.

One of the areas that is most favored by cognitive neuroscience researchers is that

of music, or neuromusical researchthe use of music as a tool to study aspects of

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

cognitive mechanisms to activate simultaneously, which creates ample opportunities for

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

particularly music education.

Once music educators became acquainted with the scientific findings of

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

is a model of the musical brain.

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to explore the following research questions:

RQ1: Can neuroscience provide evidence-based support for music education as a

core subject?

RQ2: Can neuroscience inform the practice of effective music education

pedagogy?

RQ3: Can neuroscience inform music education policy?

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

of findings can offer improvement in the classroom through music experiences.

Additionally, these findings may offer music educators the tools to teach more effectively.

As evidence builds for music educations contributions toward improved general

learning, its permanent inclusion into the national, state, and local curriculums may

become a mandatory consideration.

 CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

Neuroscience to Cognitive Neuroscience

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system (Neuroscience, n.d.).

It originally stemmed from the field of biology, but is currently an interdisciplinary field

that includes chemistry, cognitive science, computer science, engineering, linguistics,

mathematics, medicine, genetics and aspects of philosophy, physics, and psychology.

Neuroscience dates back to ancient Egypt, where preservation of papyruses, mummies,

and monuments have provided evidence of procedures such as trepanationa surgically

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

(Milestones in Neuroscience Research, n.d.). Many philosophers, including

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

invention of the first microscope in 1590 by Zacharias Janssen (Milestones in

Neuroscience Research, n.d.).

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

neuroscience has significantly contributed to the understanding of how the nervous

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

of study were formed.

Cognitive neuroscience is the study of the brains mechanisms as they relate to

cognition with a specific emphasis on neural functioning. The term cognitive

neuroscience was coined by George Miller and Michael Gazzaniga in the late 1970s,

and its methods include functional neuroimaging, electrophysiology, cognitive genomics

and behavioral genetics while combining aspects of psychology and neuroscience

(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

compensation. Recent technologies, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS),

functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET),

magnetoencephalography (MEG), and single-photon emission computed tomography

(SPECT) have allowed researchers to observe brain function and are now permanently

incorporated into the methodology of cognitive neuroscience (Cowan et al., 2000).

Educational Neuroscience (Neuroeducation)

Educational Neuroscience or neuroeducation is a component of the broader

movement Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) (Fischer et al., 2010). Educational

neuroscience is a newly established field of study that integrates research from multiple

disciplines, mainly cognitive neuroscience with behavioral methods provided by

psychology and education (Figure 1), to investigate the development of neural

mechanisms that code information in the form of electrochemical activity as it relates to

learning and teaching (Szcs & Goswami, 2007; Fischer, 2010). The goal of educational

neuroscience is to integrate the diverse disciplines that investigate human learning and

development (Fischer et al., as cited by C. Beauchamp & M. Beauchamp, 2013).

The bridging of neuroscience and education is not a new concept. Theodoridou

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

of neurobiological research into education during 1895-1896. Hodges (1997) explains

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

neuroscience can inform educational practices.

Figure 1. Discipline and sub-disciplines in Mind, Brain, and Education Science

(Tokuhama-Espinosa, T., & Bramwell, 2011)

Bridging Neuroscience and Education

A famous article among researchers when discussing whether neuroscience can

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

pruning, (2) there are experience-dependent critical periods (currently referred to as

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,

the potential possibilities can be forever lost.

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: costs, timing, control, and payoffs.

Concerns

The first concern is that of methods. Neuroscience methods do not provide access

to context in comparison to educational applications (i.e., these methods are based on

artificial scenarios and are unable to provide useful theories or information about

classroom application). Recent developments of technology instruments provide

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

paradigms could allow neuroscience to study context issues in natural environments.

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

compared Arabic numbers. English speakers showed activation of language-activated

mechanisms, whereas Chinese speakers showed activation in motor-activated

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

improve education by designing and implementing new learning contexts and

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

comprehension or mathematical reasoning, it provides no insights as to developing

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

instructional theories. Neuroscience is offering novel analyses of cognition that are

invisible to the previous methods of behavior and psychological investigation. For

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

are taught and practiced is the consequence of improved performance.

Thirdly, the concern of theory debates if reduction is inappropriate. Science uses

specific-related vocabulary that supports generalizations within that particular area of

study and avoids irrelevant distinctions. Neuroscience vocabulary is too microscopic to

support useful generalizations for education. For example, a child has difficulty

determining the larger of two numbers; an educator may describe it as difficulty in

comparing the cardinal vales of numbers symbols, whereas a neuroscientist may

describe it as a dysfunction of the intraparietal sulcus (p. 143); translating it matters

not. However, Varma et al. explains that reduction is a unifying principle of science as

terms of coarse-grain sciences are coordinated with terms of fine-grain sciences; a

process by which sciences are brought together. The only inappropriate thing concerning

reductionism is if it is eliminative. The problem lies in eliminative reductionism and that

neuroscience explanations should replace behavioral explanations (Churchland; Byrnes &

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

al., 2008; Bruer, 1997).

Lastly, Varma et al. addresses the scientific concern of philosophy; some

researchers believe that education and neuroscience have nothing in common.

Educational vocabulary stems from the social sciences; the terminology is related to that

of mental aspects and is geared for behavioral phenomena. Contrastingly, neuroscience

stems from the biological sciences; the terminology is related to that of material aspects

and is geared for physical phenomena. The attempt to describe classroom behavior by

referencing an individuals physical brain mechanism is not logical. The counter

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

describing the phenomena as with results of neuroimaging experiments (Varma et al.,

2008).

The remaining four are pragmatic concerns. An important issue of consideration

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

between both fields. If collaborations between educational researchers and

neuroscientists produce innovative research, additional funding may be provided to both

disciplines (Varma et al., 2008).

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

and developed into succinct theories. Meanwhile, neuroscientists must implement

research and distribute educational implications to the education community. However,

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

networks which leads to further research questions.

Thirdly, educators are concerned with control. Some educators argue that

education is losing its independence to neuroscience, which is a threat to their discipline.

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

that education can offer consists of trajectories of subject-matter learning, identification

of important experiences, and determination of individual differences effect brain

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

without collaboration efforts, neuroscientists are at risk of running nave experiments

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

avoid repetition of earlier mistakes.

Neuromyths

The final pragmatic concern is payoffs. Neuroscience findings are often

misconstrued into neuromyths. The issue of neuromyths is one of the most controversial

and infamous issues concerning the successful bridging of neuroscience and education.

Neuromyths describe misinformation, oversimplification, or overinterpretation of

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

to Varmas et al. concern of reductionism). It has been conceded by the researching

community that neuroscientists should remain professionally informative rather than

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).

Additionally, neuromyths are being amplified by the brain-based learning industry

or neuromarketingmarketing designed on the basis of neuroscience research (Varma et

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

teachers with inspirational marketing techniques on the supposed benefits. Due to

placebo effect, these programs may offer short-term benefits, but long-term effects are

unlikely and classroom use will eventually decay. The controversy surrounding

neuromarketings contributions to neuromyths and the misuse of science poses another

concern regarding neuroethics: should neuroscientists do anything to prevent this

misuse? (p. 412). Varma et al. explains that people like to think in terms of brains, so to

do so accurately, responsible reporting must done cumulatively. The existence of

neuromyths reveals that there is a public fascination with brain function. One solution

proposal is for researchers to provide more plain text translations of neuroscience

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

populations which would constrain inferences.

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

sections of brains from psychiatric patients to investigate changes in behavior.

Approximately 30 years later, during an interview with Albert Einstein, he implored

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

provided evidence of brain plasticity or neuroplasticityreorganization of neural

pathways in the brain caused by experience (Flohr, 2010)research began to provide

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

plug of the life support machine (Geake, 2008, p. 128).

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

isolation (Geake, 2008).

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 is processed independently from information gained through another sensory

modality. This myth has been debunked by repeated research that provides no evidence

of improvement in learning outcomes when teaching approaches were catered for

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

to determine between detecting dinner and being dinner) (Geake, 2008).

The theory of Multiple intelligences (MI) was developed by Gardner in 1993 and

divides human cognitive abilities into seven intelligences: logic-mathematics, verbal,

interpersonal, spatial, music, movement and interpersonal. Geake explains that this

theory is very similar to Platos balanced curriculum of six subjects: logic, rhetoric,

arithmetic, geometry-astronomy, music and dance-physical with additional

recommendation for meditation. Just as VAK sensory processing uses multiple cognitive

processes, so does MI processing. In other words, there are no multiple intelligences,

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

no development will occur if stimulation is not presented (Flohr, 2010). If a kittens

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

(2010) describes optimal periods as a period in which development will be faster or

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

experience throughout life.

Current Position of Education Neuroscience

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

organizations include European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction,

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,

2008). The Neuroeducational Research Network at the University of Bristol is pursuing

radical combinations of methods to explore research questions which are bringing to the

surface new issues of ethical concerns (Howard-Jones & Fenton, 2012).

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

example, number sense (i.e., a non-symbolic representation of quantity) which is an

important foundation of mathematical development and is affiliated with a specific region

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).

Jenson (2008) explains that educational neuroscience is informing education as

thousands are currently using this knowledge appropriately to enhance policy and

practice. C. Beauchamp and E. Beauchamp (2013) explain:

 Adopting a new, positive position, enhanced by an understanding of boundary

issues in the face of disciplinary borders may help professionals from diverse

fields to embrace the theoretical and practical differences between neuroscience

and education as tools to build on rather than obstacles that must be resisted. (p.

62)

Other establishments that promote educational neuroscience as a permanent

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

degree or Educational Specialist degree, both degrees offer a major in Brain-Based

Teaching (BrainSMART Teaching). Interests are exponentially increasing the world over,

particularly in Canada, Japan, Australia, South Korea, England, South Africa, New

Zealand, and Argentina (Jensen, 2008).

Neuromusical Research

Research that includes aspects of music and the brain is supplied by

multidisciplinary input from areas of cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, music

psychology, education, and music education (Music Cognition, n.d.; CSML, n.d.;

Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009). Due to the integration of these disciplines, terminology that

references neuromusical research varies and definitions can be somewhat

interchangeable; this makes standardized definitions elusive. Neuroscientists, such as

Peretz and Zatorre (as cited by Brattico, 2006), use the terminology: cognitive

neuroscience of musicthe study of brain-based mechanisms involved in the cognitive

process as they relate to music. However, music educators refer to research regarding

general, all-inclusive aspects of neuroscience and music as neuromusical research

(Hodges, 1997). Another term worth clarifying is music cognitionan interdisciplinary

field concerned with the application of methods affiliated with cognitive science (e.g.,

experimental, computational, and neurological aspects) to musical issues and problems

(Music Cognition, n.d.). The origin of music cognition traces back to 4th century BCE

with Aristotelian philosopher Aristoxenus (Levitin, as cited by Levitin & Tirovolas,

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

existence toward psychological existence (Fechner, as cited by Levitin & Tirovolas,

2009). Many early studies in experimental psychology concerned music, and the Gestalt

psychology movementthe study of perception and behavior from the standpoint of an

individual's response to configurational wholes with stress on the uniformity of

psychological and physiological events and rejection of analysis into discrete events of

stimulus, percept, and response (Gestalt psychology, n.d.)was formed to address

questions about part-whole relationships in music and melody (Ehrenfels, as cited by

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

(2009) explain music as a form of artistic expression, communication, self-expression

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

of music cognition is cognitive musicology, which is concerned with computationally

modeling musical knowledge with the goal of understanding both music and cognition

(Laske, 1999).

Current Position of Neuromusical Research

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

abstracts, most written since 2000 (Margulis, 2008).

 Figure 2. Growth of Peer-Reviewed Neuromusical Studies (Edwards, n.d.)

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 (Meltzoff et al., 2009, as cited by Hodges, 2010), Neurosciences in Music

Pedagogy (Gruhn & Rauscher, 2007, as cited by Hodges, 2010), Neuroeducation:

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).

Neuromusical research is generally examined in three ways: (1) by the discipline

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,

short-term memory, emotional responses, cognitive prediction, and social

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

functioning (i.e., neuroplasticity). Zatorre (2005) explained:

listening to and producing music involves a tantalizing mix of practically every

human cognitive function. Even a seemingly simple activity, such as humming a

familiar tune, necessitates complex auditory pattern-processing mechanisms,

attention, memory storage and retrieval, motor programming, sensory-motor

integration, and so forth. (p. 312)

(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.

Benefits of Music Education

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)

(2) Music can contribute to improvements concerning learning disabilities and/or

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)

explains that playing an instrument can lead to a sense of achievement; an increase in

self-esteem; increased confidence; persistence in overcoming frustrations when learning

is difficult; self-discipline; and provide a means of self-expression.

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

percent) (Harris Interactive Inc., as cited by All Research: NAfME, n.d.).

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

advocacy, the dangers of inaccurate advocacy statements, and advocacy positions

(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

priority (p. 173).

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

because of neuromusical research (p. 45).

Current neuromusical research is providing advocacy arguments and philosophies

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)

music plays an important part in ontogenetic development (i.e., formation of organisms)

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

example, fiction and creativity afforded them evolutionary advantage by considering

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,

recursion, and abstract representation (Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009, p. 213).

Contrastingly, one famous criticism of music cognition worth noting was

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

because it is auditory cheesecake, and is an evolutionary byproduct of the adaptation

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

duplicates peer-reviewed research.

Concerns

The limitations in neuromusical research are rapidly changing as findings become

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

toward fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and

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

is a lack of basic research on fundamental processes of music learning and pedagogy.

Practices are often implemented without sufficient knowledge of the underlying

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

long-term, basic research.

Ethics

Howard-Jones and Fenton (2012) explain that research in educational

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.,

psychological, educational) and physical safety concerns. Additionally, there is ethical

considerations surrounding children and animals in research. As previously stated,

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

attention of animal-rights activists with consideration to the welfare of our fellow

Earthlings, and of scientists who argue that perhaps the transfer of findings from animals

to humans may not even be commensurable. The National Anti-Vivisection Society

(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

can be extrapolated and applied to human conditions. Although this methodology

has become the norm in research labs around the world, a closer look at the data

makes it clear that species who share close evolutionary relationships or

anatomical similarities do not necessarily undergo the same biochemical

 mechanisms or physiological responses. In fact, it can be dangerous to apply

animal-derived data to humans. (Animals in Science, 2015)

Musical-based Neuromyth

One of the most famous neuromyths happens to also be a musical-based

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

instructions or silence. As results were overgeneralized by media and popularized by

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:

spatial-temporal reasoning (Catterall & Rauscher, 2008). However, current neuromusical

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

areas of the brain that are activated in other subjects.

Opportunities

Hodges (1997) reflects on the previous concerns (magic versus mystery,

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)

as it relates to expressive (e.g., musicians as small-muscle athletes) and receptive (e.g.,

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

(e.g., savant syndrome).

 With regards to ethical concerns, Howard-Jones and Fenton (2012) propose the

opportunity to create interdisciplinary and public dialogue to develop appropriate

normative principles. However, no single set of principles will provide a universal

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

conduct studies with public hopes, concerns, and values in practice.

Implications and Applications in Music Education

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

learning cycle as Sense (leads to) Integrate (leads to) Act:

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

meaning. To derive meaning, we must integrate the sensory information into a

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

organizes incoming sensory information into meaningful musical experience to

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

from the way the brain is built. (p. 2)

Hodges continues that additional components can be added to the model, such as active

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

emotions, multisensory, and memory. Additionally, components that were discussed

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

teaching-learning process (p. 1).

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

school resources more effectively by offering suggestions for integrating brain-based

teaching through interdisciplinary teaching practices. Sharing expertise between general

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)

administrators should implement collaborative time and can be facilitated by technology

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

happening in the world (Curtis & Fallin, 2014, p. 55).

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

questions how educators sequence and structure music learning experiences.

 CHAPTER 3

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

advocating for music educations value in a rejuvenated state.

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,

activates multiple mechanisms in the brain simultaneously and contributes to the

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

to higher achievement scores and performance in academics (All Research: NAfME,

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

(i.e., how exactly does music achieve these results?).

 The second question researched is can neuroscience inform the practice of

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

discussions and recommendations.

 CHAPTER 4

Discussion and Recommendations

The first research question investigated whether neuroscience findings could

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

evolutionarily predispositioned for musical behavior, there is a philosophical

responsibility to examine that reason (Hodges, 1997).

Neuromusical research may provide findings that influence society to heavily

consider supporting musical endeavors because music has a huge effect on brain

plasticity and its ability to enhance attention and improve memory (Posner & Patoine,

2009). Music education also improves the individuals spatial-temporal reasoning,

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:

children with formal music training show different patterns of associations

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

similar auditory mechanisms. Our results highlight the importance of considering

music training when examining relations between music perception and other

cognitive domains. (p. 162)

 Music can also contribute to improvements concerning learning disabilities and/or

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

(Patel, 2013, as cited by Flaugnacco et al., 2014, p. 392).

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

a sense of achievement; an increase in self-esteem; increased confidence; persistence in

overcoming frustrations when learning is difficult; self-discipline; and provide a means of

self-expression (Hallam, 2010). These may increase motivation for learning in general

thus supporting enhanced attainment.

Indirect effects of music education include participating in musical groups which

promotes friendships with like-minded people; social skills; social networking; a sense of

belonging; team work; self-discipline; a sense of accomplishment; co-operation;

responsibility; commitment; mutual support; bonding to meet group goals; increased

concentration and provides an outlet for relaxation (Hallam, 2010).

 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 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

theory of relativity occurred to me by intuition, and music is the driving force

behind this intuition. My parents had me study the violin from the time I was six.

My new discovery is the result of musical perception. (Suzuki, 1969, p. 90)

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.

The second research question investigated whether neuroscience findings could

inform the practice of effective music education pedagogy. In 1997, Hodges wrote that

neuromusical research may derive specific pedagogical strategies solidly grounded by

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

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 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

practices, or create new pedagogical strategies by questioning how we sequence and

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

move the field from an opinion-based profession to an evidence-based one.

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

integrating brain-based teaching through interdisciplinary teaching practices.

Additionally, Collins (2013) agrees that neuroscience contributes to music education

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

translated scientific model of learning.

Finally, neuroscience can inform music education because through neuroscience

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

translates neuroscientific findings into informative practical applications for effective

learning and pedagogy.

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

consistently resulted in improvement of performance associated with math and problem-

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

Interactive Inc., as cited by All Research: NAfME, n.d.).

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

curriculums. Ferrari (2011) explains that neuroscience as applied to 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

music education curriculum is essential.

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.

However, if educational applications are based on neuroscience findings, they must be

constantly updated due to the rapid expansion and developments in research.

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

(2013) are newfound examples of how neuromusical research is informing and

confirming effective pedagogy techniques.

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

music-processing steps should be implemented (Collins, 2013).

Music educators should especially be proactive with organizations to help bridge

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

of neuroscience research in practitioner and research journals, especially in American

music education research publications, also needs to be improved. The lack of articles

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

articles are not typically read by music educators.

One of the proposed ways to bridge the gap between neuroscience and education,

which is highly supported by researchers, is that of creating direct dialog between

scientists and educators, while avoiding those who seek profit off of brain-based

marketing schemes (i.e., neuromarketing) (Goswami, 2006). Goswami (2006) also

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

communicating information in a digestible form (e.g., similar to information officers of

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

education and possibly attached to universities or national education departments;

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

own native discipline. Additionally, it is important that education researchers and

neuroscientists view themselves as collaborators and not as competitors by formulating

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

neuromusical research (Hodges, 1997). This all-encompassing term neatly fits

multidisciplinary research together and forwards two previous suggestions to bridge

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

science, research schools must be established, where collaborations occur to craft

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

contributors to formulating research methods and questions and neglects the

importance of the ecology of schools and other learning environments. (p. 68)

Another point of interest if that of potential teacher-training policies that can be

implemented to reflect effective teaching practices and methodologies by understanding

how the human brain functions and learns. This can be accomplished through a new

discipline of neuromusical education.

Finally, with consideration of Einsteins theory of music providing intuitiveness

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

amplifies it through experiential learning and intuitive development.

 CHAPTER 5

Conclusion

Neuroscience can provide evidence-based support for music education as a core

subject through enhanced academic performance, social development and as a synergistic

amplifier of other academic subjects, such as math, science, and language. Therefore,

neuroscience can also inform the practice of effective pedagogy by informing music

educators of brain function and learning processes. Neuroscience is also informing

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

curriculum without designation of subject matter. Through the implementation of these

practices, policy can and should be informed.

Neuroscience findings have contributed much useful information to the field of

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

About CNS. (n.d.). In Cognitive Neuroscience Society. Retrieved from

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/

Animals in Science. (2015). In National Anti-Vivisection Society. Retrieved from

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-

19-852520-6 (paperback). Musicae Scientiae, 10(1), p. 130-137.

doi: 10.1177/102986490601000107.

Bruer, J. (1997). "Education and the brain: A bridge too far". Educational Researcher 26

p. 4-16. doi: 10.3102/0013189x026008004.

Beauchamp, C., & Beauchamp, M. (2013). Boundary as bridge: An analysis of the

educational neuroscience literature from a boundary perspective. Educational

Psychology Review, 25(1), p. 47-67. doi: 10.1007/s10648-012-9207-x.

Catterall, J.S., & Rauscher, F. (2008). Unpacking the impact of music on intelligence. In

W. Gruhn & Rauscher (Eds.), Neurosciences in music pedagogy (p. 171-201).

Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Retrieved from

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

Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from

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:

Learning and Skills Research Centre. Retrieved from

http://sxills.nl/lerenlerennu/bronnen/Learning%20styles%20by%20Coffield%20e.a..pdf

Collins, A. (2013). Neuroscience meets music education: Exploring the implications of

neural processing models on music education practice. International Journal of

Music Education, 31(2), 217-231. doi: 10.1177/0255761413483081.

Cowan, W.M., Harter, D.H., & Kandel, E.R. (2000). The emergence of modern

neuroscience: Some implications for neurology and psychiatry. Annual Review of

Neuroscience, 23, p. 345-346. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.343.

CSML: Cognitive and Systematic Musicology Laboratory. (n.d.). In Ohio State

University. Retrieved from http://musiccog.ohio-state.edu/home/index.php/Home

Curtis, L., & Fallin, J. (2014). Neuroeducation and music: Collaboration for student

success. Music Educators Journal, 101(2), 52-56.

doi: 10.1177/0027432114553637.

Edwards, R. (2008). The neurosciences and music education: An online database of

brain imaging neuromusical research (Accession No. 3307191). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences

Collection. (304540424). Retrieved from

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

Elliott, D. (1995). Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Ferrari, M. (2011). What can neuroscience bring to education?. Educational Philosophy

and Theory, 43(1), p. 31-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00704.x.

Fischer, K. W., Goswami, U., Geake, J., & the Task Force on the Future of Educational

Neuroscience. (2010). The Future of Educational Neuroscience. Mind, Brain, and

Education, 4, p. 6880. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2010.01086.x.

Fisher, C., Chin L., & Klitzman R. (2010). Defining Neuromarketing: Practices and

Professional Challenges. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 18(4), p. 230-237.

doi: 10.3109/10673229.2010.496623.

Flaugnacco, E., Lopez, L., Terribili, C., Zoia, S., Buda, S., et al. (2014). Rhythm

perception and production predict reading abilities in developmental

dyslexia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, p. 392.

doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00392.

Flohr, J. (2010). Best practices for young childrens music education: Guidance from

brain research. General Music Today, 23(2), p. 13-19.

doi: 10.1177/1048371309352344.

Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50(2), p. 123-

133. doi: 10.1080/00131880802082518.

Gestalt psychology. (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gestalt%20psychology
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice?. Nature

Reviews Neuroscience, 7(5), p. 406-413. doi: 10.1038/nrn1907.

Hallam, S. (2010). The power of music: Its impact on the intellectual, social and personal

development of children and young people. International Journal of Music

Education, 28(3), 269-289. doi: 10.1177/0255761410370658.

Hardiman, M., Magsamen, S., McKhann, G., & Eilber, J. (2009). Neuroeducation:

Learning, arts, and the brain. New York: Dana Press.

Hille, K., Gust, K., Bitz, U., & Kammer, T. (2011). Associations between music

education, intelligence, and spelling ability in elementary school. Advances in

Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), p. 1-6. doi: 10.2478/v10053-008-0082-4.

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

Music Today, 23(2), p. 3-13. doi: 10.1177/1048371309349569.

Hodges, D., & Gruhn, W. (2012). Implications of neurosciences and brain research for

music teaching and learning. In G. E. McPherson & G. F. Welch (Eds.), The

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

Developing Ethical Approaches to Neuroeducational Research. Neuroethics 5(2),

p. 119-134. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9101-0.

Hruby, G. (2012). Three requirements for justifying an educational neuroscience. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), p. 1-23.

 doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02068.x.

Hyde, K., Lerch, J., Norton, A., Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Evans, A., & Gottfied, S.

(2009). Musical training shapes structural brain development. Journal of

Neuroscience, 29(10), p. 3019-3025. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5118-08.2009.

Jenson, E. (2008). A fresh look at brain-based education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 89(6), p.

408-417. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20442521

Koelsch, S., & Siebel, W. (2005). Towards a neural basis of music perception. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 9(12), p. 578-584. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.001.

Laske, O. (1999). Navigating New Musical Horizons (Contributions to the Study of

Music and Dance). Westport: Greenwood Press.

Levitin, D. (2006). This is your brain on music: The science of a human obsession.

New York: Dutton.

Levitin, D., & Tirovolas, A. (2009). Current advances in the cognitive neuroscience of

music. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), p. 211-231.

doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04417.x.

Margulis, E. (2008). Neuroscience, the food of musical culture?. Review of General

Psychology, 12(2), p. 159-169. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.12.2.159.

Milestones in neuroscience research. (n.d.). In University of Washington. Retrieved

from https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/hist.html

Miranda, E., & Overy, K. (2009). Preface: The neuroscience of music. Contemporary

Music Review, 28(3), p. 247-250. doi: 10.1080/07494460903416364.

Music Cognition. (n.d.). In Eastman School of Music. Retrieved from

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.

Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-State-of-

LD.pdf

Pearce, M., & Rohrmeier, M. (2012). Music cognition and the cognitive sciences. Topics

in Cognitive Science, 4(4), p. 468-484. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01226.x.

Peterson, A. (2011). The impact of neuroscience on music education advocacy and

philosophy. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(4), p. 206-213.

doi: 10.1080/10632913.2011.592475.

Posner, M. & Patoine, B. (2009). How arts training improves attention and cognition.

Cerebrum. Retrieved from http://dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=23206

Reimer, B. (1970). A Philosophy of Music Education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-

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-

127. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00012.x.

Thomas Sudhof wins nobel prize in physiology or medicine. (2013). In Stanford

Medicine. Retrieved from http://medicalgiving.stanford.edu/news/sudhof-wins-

nobel.html

Trepanation. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/trepanation

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T., & Bramwell. (2011). Discipline and sub-disciplines in Mind,

Brain, and Education Science [Diagram]. Retrieved from

http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Journals/Winter2011/Tokuhama2

Tsang, C., & Conrad, N. (2011). Music training and reading readiness. Music Perception:

An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29(2), p. 157-163. doi: 10.1525/MP.2011.29.2.157.

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

for bridging education and neuroscience. Educational Researcher, 37(3), p. 140-

152. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08317687.

Zatorre, R. (2005). Music, the food of neuroscience? Nature, 434(7031) p. 312-315.

doi: 10.1038/434312a.

Zuk, J., Andrade, P., Andrade, O., Gardiner, M., & Gaab, N. (2013). Musical, language,

and reading abilities in early portuguese readers. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, p.

288. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00288.