Music Instruction for Improving Cognitive and

Social Emotional Development and Academic

Achievement in School-aged Children and
Youth: A Systematic Review
Gabrielle Chapman, Jan Morrison & Mark Lipsey

Submitted to the Coordinating Group of:

Crime and Justice
Education
Disability
International Development
Nutrition
Social Welfare
Other:

Plans to co-register:
No
Yes Cochrane Other
Maybe

Date Submitted: 28 April 2016

Date Revision Submitted: 19 July 2016
Approval Date: 31 July 2016
Publication Date: 01 September 2016

The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

TITLE OF THE REVIEW

Music Instruction for Improving Cognitive and Social Emotional Development and
Academic Achievement in School-aged Children and Youth: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND

Music instruction, while available in most public schools, has struggled to remain relevant in
today’s test-focused curriculum. While 89-97% of elementary students receive some kind of
music instruction in school, the type and quality of instruction varies widely (Parsad &
Spiegelman, 2012). In elementary schools where at least 50% of the students are on free or
reduced lunch, 84% of music teachers had a district curriculum to follow, 49% of teachers
taught at more than one school, and 25% of teachers taught music class outside of regular
school hours. In 2013, as many as 159 art and music teachers were laid off in the Chicago
Public School system because of budget cuts (Fang, 2013); Philadelphia city schools
completely eliminated funding for art and music programs to deal with a $304 million
budget shortfall. (Woodall & Chea-Annan, 2013).

In December of 2015, President Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) which rejects the overuse of standardized tests and empowers each state to develop
their own strong systems for school improvement based upon evidence. This new law also
ensures that arts education programs (Section 4104, b, II) are eligible to receive federal
funds and Sec 4107 states “programs and activities that use music and arts as tools to
support student success” will be funded. With the ESSA grants beginning in July 1, 2016 now
is the perfect time to explore the impact of music instruction on student achievement and
cognitive development.

Research on the benefits of music instruction has blossomed over that past 20 years.
Studies on intelligence, academic success, and cognitive skills have documented the value of
music in the lives of children. Concerning IQ, Schellenberg (2004) found a significant
increase in children receiving 36 weeks of music. On the other hand, Gromko & Poorman
(1998) found no significant difference in IQ for pre-schoolers who received weekly piano
instruction for 3 years and those who did not. Ho, Cheung & Chan (2003) found that boys in
Hong Kong, who had classical music training for 1-5 years, significantly improved on verbal
memory tasks compared with boys who had no music training. However they found no
significant difference on visual memory tasks. Johnson & Memmott (2006) found a slight
advantage in standardized math and English tests for 3rd, 4th, 8th & 9th graders who had
participated in high quality music programs. Both Harris (2008) and Helmrich (2008)
found that students who engaged in music instruction performed better in elementary
mathematics and algebra. For reading outcomes, Baek’s 2009 study of preschoolers showed
that children who received music instruction for 8 weeks had significantly higher reading
scores than those with no music instruction.

1 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

Theory of change: Many skills are required when playing a musical instrument: motor,
listening, reading, translating the “language” of music, and memorization (the sharps or flats
of a key). Studies have shown that exposure to music can change the way the brain operates.
Schlaug, Norton, Overy & Winner’s (2005) study used MRI to examine the brain changes in
children involved (or not) in music training. For children aged 5-7, there were no structural
brain difference at baseline between the instrumental and matched control groups. After one
year of instrumental music training, there was a greater increase in gray matter volume (not
significant) for the music group compared to the control group. However, in another study
with 9-11 years old subjects with an average of four years of music training, the music group
had significantly more gray matter volume compared to a matched group of non-
instrumentalists. The music group also performed significantly better on the WISC-III
Vocabulary test, and outperformed the controls on phonemic awareness, the Raven’s
Progressive Matrices and the Key Math test, although differences were not significant.

Gains in academic achievement, cognitive and social-emotional skills are considered to be

far-transfer benefits of music instruction (Jaschke, Eggermont, Honing & Scherder, 2013).
While far-transfer effects are harder to detect than near-transfer benefits (fine motor skills,
perception of pitch and rhythm), significant effects of music instruction were found for
reading, writing and math in their meta-analysis. Miendlarzewska & Trost (2014) describe
the effects of music training in childhood in their review. Listening skills are routinely
improved by music instruction, which in-turn improves language processing and reading.
Miendlarzewska & Trost theorize that music lessons act as additional schooling and that
focused attention, memorization, and mastery of technical skills translate into higher IQ
scores and achievement.

Effects of music instruction on children not at-risk: Bilhartz et al. (1999) reported on
preschoolers who had 30 weeks of parent-involved music instruction. These children showed
significant gain in the Stanford-Binet Bead Test compared with controls. In another study,
upper-middle-income kindergarten and first grade children were followed for three years
after receiving 8 months of keyboard lessons (Rauscher, 2002; Rauscher & Zupan, 2000).
Children who received music instruction scored higher on spatial-temporal tasks compared
to children in the control condition. However, Rickard, Bambrick & Gill (2012) found no
advantage for children engaging in a music education program in reading or math while
attending private schools in Australia. A recent study (Hogenes, Oers, Diekstra & Sklad,
2015) of Dutch 5th and 6th graders reports that after 6 months of a music composition
intervention, subjects were more engaged in music education and performed better on
reading comprehension measures than the control group.

Music programs, cognitive and social abilities with low-income, high risk children: Costa-
Giomi (2004) studied 63 low-income Montreal fourth graders who were provided with
weekly piano lessons for three years; 54 children were not. The children were assessed using
the Developing Cognitive Abilities Test (DCAT), language and math subtests from the
Canadian Achievement Tests, and other measures. At post-test there was a small effect for

2 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

the treatment group on general cognitive abilities and spatial development, but not for
verbal and quantitative abilities. There was no difference in academic achievement in math
and language as measured by standardized tests and report cards. Rauscher (2005) studied
economically disadvantaged elementary school children to see the effects of twice-weekly or
three times per month group keyboard lessons or no lessons at all. By the third year, and
after improvement of the quality of musical instruction, the keyboard group scored higher on
spatial-temporal tasks and arithmetic; however there no difference between groups on verbal
measures. A study evaluating the impact of a music program designed to foster cognitive
development and social esteem among high-risk 7-9 year old children in Israel (Portowitz, et
al., 2009) favored children in the experimental group. The treatment group received private
instrumental lessons for two years and the control group did not. Pre and post assessments
evaluated the development of cognitive skills with the Raven and the Complex Figure Tests
and social esteem (Fitts). Both groups improved their cognition after two years; however,
the treatment group’s cognitive skills were significantly greater than the control group’s
skills. In another Portowitz study (2014), elementary-aged children who participated in 32
hours of music training had significantly better memory outcomes than the control group.

In our own pilot study at the W. O. Smith Music School in Nashville, TN, our two-year
findings have shown significant differences for children in the music-treatment group. The
W. O. Smith Music School is an afterschool program that provides quality music instruction
for low-income, at-risk children for a nominal fee. For the spring 2015 follow-up, children
who were exposed to music classes and/or private lessons were significantly more accurate
on the Cogstate One-Back Working Memory Task than children on the wait-list at a 9-month
(Tx = 27, C = 21, p = .018) and 21-month assessment (Tx = 14, C = 10, p = .038).

Additionally, children exposed to music performed more accurately on the Cogstate Social-
Emotional Task than children on the wait-list at a 9-month (p = .07) and 21-month follow-
up. The treatment group had higher language arts grades after 9-months, while the control
group had higher grades in science, math and social studies, but none of these differences
were significant. These were parent-reported grades, however, and some subjects’ grades
were missing (Tx = 26-25, C = 16-18).

Previous Systematic Reviews: While some meta-analyses in this topic area have been
completed, they have been quite limited in scope with regard to intervention type, context,
and outcomes. This review team proposes to conduct a robust systematic review that will fill
the evidence gap in five key areas. First, our outcomes will be comprehensive. We are seeking
the effects of music instruction on all areas of academic achievement as well as prosocial
behaviour, social emotional skills and cognition. Most of the existing reviews of the effects of
music instruction focus on a very narrow set of outcomes often limited to those most
commonly associated with the primary author’s discipline (see for example, Butzlaff 2000,
Hetland 2000b, Pietschnig 2010, Vaughn 2000). This proposal seeks to avoid the silo effect
and look at a wide variety of outcome types, essentially covering all the outcome categories
examined in the primary literature. This inclusivity among outcomes will allow the review

3 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

team to examine variations of effects across outcome domains and with sufficient data, may
even allow for the examination of relationships among/between the various outcomes,
something that has not been done in systematic review literature in this area before. Second,
similar to the outcome situation identified above, most of the completed reviews include only
a very narrow definition of music instruction (see for example Hetland 2000a, Pietschnig
2010, Standley 1996) or included both passive listening and active learning but did not
differentiate between the two in terms of effects (Jaschke 2013). Third, and to the latter
point, the proposed study is designed to examine a wide variety of music instruction formats
and will identify which instruction formats and structures are associated with larger effects
on the outcome categories. Fourth, in examining the existing systematic reviews in this topic
area, issues were discovered with regard to the limited and somewhat flawed use of literature
search terms (see for example Jaschke 2013, Standley 1996). The proposed study will be
exhaustive when developing search terms to include terms across all academic disciplines. A
few of these reviews limited the eligibility criteria to English only studies (Hetland 2000a &
2000b, Standley 1996). To make the proposed study more representative, the review team
will utilize Peabody Research Institute’s existing relationships with systematic reviewers
outside the U.S. and the U.K. to identify any eligible non-English studies. The fifth and final
way the proposed study will fill the gap in literature is by expanding the search years
included in the review. The existing reviews examine a limited time frame, most of which
end in the late 1990s and our proposed study will perform a literature search on a somewhat
unlimited time frame that will cover 1950 through July 2016.

By expanding the inclusion criteria to overcome gaps in previous systematic reviews, we will
be able to provide empirically supported answers to questions that have not been posed
before due to the narrow scope of much of the music instruction literature. In addition to
these key questions, the overall objective is to draw on this systematic review of the available
research to identify implications for practice and policy and answer questions such as: how
can research about children’s exposure to music instruction programs inform educational
policy and governmental (local, state, and federal) funding priorities?

OBJECTIVES

The proposed review is intended to provide empirically supported answers to the following
questions:

1. Do music instruction programs have positive effects on the following outcome

categories: children’s academic success, cognitive development, socio-emotional
growth?

2. Which music program types (e.g., voice or instrument-based) have the largest effects
on each outcome category?

4 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

 3. Which characteristics of music programs (e.g., instruction duration, instructor
background, one-on-one or group instruction) are associated with the largest effects
on each outcome category?

4. Which characteristics of music program participants (e.g., at risk youth, age, sex, etc.)
are associated with the largest effects on each outcome category?

In addition to these key questions, the overall objective is to draw on the systematic
review of the available research to identify implications for practice and policy and
answer questions such as: how can research about children’s exposure to music
instruction programs inform educational policy and governmental (local, state, and
federal) funding priorities?

EXISTING REVIEWS

The following citations include existing systematic reviews on the topic of the cognitive,
socio-emotional or academic effects of music instruction:

Butzlaff, R. (2000). Can music be used to teach reading? Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34,
167-178. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333642

Hetland, L. (2000a). Listening to Music Enhances Spatial-Temporal Reasoning: Evidence

for the "Mozart Effect". The Journal of Aesthetic Education 34(3/4), Special Issue,
The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows (Autumn-Winter, 105-
148. http://doi.org/10.2307/3333640

Hetland, L. (2000b). Learning to make music enhances spatial reasoning. Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), Special Issue, The arts and academic achievement:
What the evidence shows (Autumn-Winter), 179-238.
http://doi.org/10.2307/3333643

Jaschke, A. C., Eggermont, L. H. P., Honing, H. & Scherder, E. J. A. (2013). Music education
and its effect on intellectual abilities in children: A systematic review. Review in the
Neurosciences – DeGruyter, 24(6), 665-675. http://doi.org/10.1515/revneuro-2013-
0023

Miendlearzewska, E. A. & Trost, W. J. (2014). How musical training affects cognitive

development: rhythm, reward and other modulating variables. Frontiers in
Neuroscience, 7, 1-18. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00279

Standley, J. M. (1996). A meta-analysis on the effects of music reinforcement for

education/therapy objectives. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(2), 105-
133. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345665

5 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

Vaughn, K. (2000) Music and Mathematics: Modest support for the oft-claimed relationship.
Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(3/4), Special Issue: The Arts and Academic
Achievement: What the Evidence Shows (Fall/Winter 2000), 149-166.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333641

Our proposal for this systematic review of music effects will fill the evidence gap in the
following ways:

1) Our outcomes will be comprehensive. We are seeking the effects of music instruction
on all areas of academic achievement as well as prosocial behaviour, social emotional
skills and cognition. Each of the reviews listed above focus on a very narrow set of
outcomes often limited to those most commonly associated with the primary author’s
discipline. This proposal seeks to avoid the silo effect and look at a wide variety of
outcome types, essentially covering all the outcome categories examined in the
primary literature. This inclusivity among outcomes will allow the proposers to
examine the relationships among/between the various outcomes, something that has
not been done in systematic review literature in this area before.

2) Similar to the outcome situation identified in #1 above, each of the completed reviews
above includes only a very narrow definition of music instruction. The proposed
study is designed to examine a wide variety of music instruction formats and will
identify which instruction formats and structures are associated with larger effects on
the outcome categories.

3) In examining the systematic reviews listed above, issues were discovered with regard
to the limited and somewhat flawed use of literature search terms. The proposed
study will be exhaustive when developing search terms to include terms across all
academic disciplines.

4) Most of these reviews limited the eligibility criteria to English only studies. The
proposed study will utilize Peabody Research Institute’s existing relationships with
systematic reviewers outside the U.S. and the U.K. to identify any eligible non-
English studies.

5) Unlike many of the reviews listed above, the proposed study will perform a literature
search on a somewhat unlimited time frame that will cover 1950 through July 2016.

INTERVENTION

Based on existing research the underlying hypothesis for this study is that music instruction
positively effects other aspects of a child’s life. The logic here is that the acts of doing,
making, or learning music positively contributes to a growing and developing youth’s
improved cognitive function, socio-emotional capacity, and academic achievement.
Following this logic the authors will define music instruction as music programs that involve

6 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

active music participation by the subjects of the intervention and limit the proposed review
to this intervention type. Active music instruction is defined as actively learning to read
music, playing an instrument in groups or one-on-one with a teacher or singing in a choral
ensemble. Any program where learning or performing music is the focus will be included.
What will not be included: 1) listening only to music, which might be called music
appreciation or general music; 2) Using music to learn other subjects, such as singing the
alphabet, memorizing the names of states or a dance class; or 3) listening to music while
taking a test.

To be eligible for the meta-analysis proposed in this review, a study must involve a qualifying
music instruction program. As noted above, an eligible music intervention will be defined as
one that involves active music participation (as opposed to passive listening such as playing
Mozart in the classroom while students take a test). To be eligible, interventions must engage
subjects in some form of active learning that cognitively and/or physically engages the
subjects such as learning to read music and playing an instrument. An eligible intervention
can include any type of music instruction on any kind of instrument, including vocal lessons
or choral ensembles as long as it involves active learning. Interventions that are excluded
from this study include passive listening to music while engaging in another task and general
music classes in which students learn about music generally but do not learn to play an
instrument.

Interventions that meet eligibility criteria in terms of intervention type (active music
instruction) will be included regardless of intensity or duration of the programs (these
characteristics will be coded into the meta-analytic database). An eligible study will also
include music instruction programs in any setting or instructional format to include but not
limited to school music/band class, extracurricular or home school co-operational settings as
well as group or one-on-one instruction formats.

The studies to be included in the proposed meta-analysis must also involve a comparison
between one or more focal treatments or active music instruction program(s) and one or
more control conditions which can be no music instruction, passive listening (e.g., listening
to music during which the participant does not engage in active music learning), or
educational curriculum as usual (e.g., control group goes to an honors algebra class or
current events instead of music instruction). Additionally, a group of children who drop out
or refuse to attend music instruction will not be considered a qualifying control condition
however wait-list control groups will be acceptable.

POPULATION

The proposed study will focus on children and youth who participate in music instruction.
Children and youth will be defined as persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of this
study. The proposed study will include all children and youth receiving music instruction
regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status (these subject characteristics will

7 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

all be coded). Because this study aims to assess the effects of music instruction on the
average child not constrained by significant medical or psychological deficits, the target
population for this study will exclude significantly medically, intellectually and/or
psychologically compromised youth. Three examples from searches of primary studies in this
topic area that illustrate this exclusion include music instruction and/or exposure for youth
diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, as well as youth undergoing chemotherapy where
music is used to limit the effects of “chemo brain” and music therapy for youth with clinical
psychopathologies.

It should also be noted that the proposed review will include studies conducted in any
country. There will be no limitation on the nationality, race or ethnicity of the subjects where
the intervention occurs. Additionally, this review will include studies conducted during or
after 1950 with a publication date in 1950 or later.

OUTCOMES

To be eligible for the proposed meta-analysis, studies must report at least one outcome
variable describing the treatment and control samples with regard to their post- intervention
cognition, socio-emotional, academic achievement or the like. This outcome must be
quantitative with results reported on at least one variable in a form that, at minimum, allows
the direction of the effect to be determined (whether the outcome was more favorable for the
treatment or control group). If an outcome is measured but the reported results fall short of
this standard, the study will still be acceptable if the required results can be obtained from
the author or other sources.

Based on a review of the primary studies in this topic area, the outcomes that will be the
focus of the proposed meta-analysis and which represent the different categories of
intervention effects in studies of music instruction effects will include but not necessarily be
limited to:

Cognitive function: working memory, IQ, attention, self-regulation, socio-emotional skills,

visual and verbal memory, spatial awareness, spatial memory, etc.

Socio-emotional capacity: school behavioural measures, self-esteem, empathy, social skills,

emotional comprehension, etc.

Academic gains or attainment: STEM achievement (science, technology, engineering, math),

language arts achievement (vocabulary, reading, language mechanics, phonological
awareness, spelling, reading comprehension, etc.), other academic achievement (e.g., social
studies, foreign language, history etc.), standardized testing results (WISC, Wechsler, etc.),
grade point average, graduation or degree completion.

8 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

STUDY DESIGNS

To be a qualifying design for this review, a study must compare subject group(s) receiving
active music instruction with at least one qualifying control condition (no music instruction,
passive listening or educational curriculum as usual). To be included, the subjects in a study
must either be randomly assigned to a qualifying music intervention and control condition;
OR matched mechanically or statistically on recognized variables for music proficiency and
demographics such as prior participation in music training, age, and socioeconomic status;
OR, if not randomized or matched, must provide pre-treatment data that can be compared.

In terms of sample size, to be eligible for this review a study must include at least 10 subjects
in the music instruction group and 10 in the control group at the point of assignment or
selection to the experimental conditions (i.e., pretest). Note that studies meeting all other
eligibility criteria will be included in this review regardless of their reporting format to help
ensure that there is no bias toward to formal journal publication. For example, technical
reports, dissertations and other forms of grey literature are eligible if they meet the inclusion
criteria.

REFERENCES

(* references we have identified for coding.)

Anvari, S. H., Trainor, L. J., Woodside, J. & Levy, B. A. (2002). Relations among music skills,
phonological processing, and early reading ability in preschool children. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 111-130. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
0965(02)00124-8 *

Arnett-Gary, D. (1998). The effects of the arts on academic achievement. Masters Abstracts
International, 42(01), 22.

Baek, J. (2009). The effects of music instruction using picture books and creative activities
on musical creativity, music aptitude and reading ability of young children
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(Document ID 3361830). *

Bialystok, E. & DePape, A. M. (2009). Musical Expertise, Bilingualism, and Executive

Functioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 35(2), 565–574. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0012735

Bilhartz, T. D., Bruhn, R. A. & Olson, J. E. (2000). The effect of early music training on child
cognitive development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 615-
636. http://www.artsedsearch.org/summaries/the-effect-of-early-music-training-on-
child-cognitive-development *

9 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

Bolduc, J. (2008). Effects of music instruction on emergent literacy capacities among
preschool children: A review. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 10(1).
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v10n1/bolduc.html

Bolduc, J. (2009). Effects of a music programme on kindergartners’ phonological awareness

skills. International Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 37-47.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0255761408099063 *

Bolduc, J. & Lefebvre, P. (2012). Using nursery rhymes to foster phonological and musical
processing skills in kindergarteners. Creative Education, 3(4), 495-502.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.34075 *

Butzlaff, R. (2000). Can music be used to teach reading? Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34,
167-178. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333642

Costa-Giomi, E. (1999). The effects of three years of piano instruction on children’s cognitive
development. Journal of Research in Music Education. 47(5), 198-212.
http://doi.org/10.2307/3345779 *

Costa-Giomi, E. (2004). Effects of three years of piano instruction on children’s academic

achievement, school performance and self-esteem. Psychology of Music, 32(2), 139-
152. http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735604041491 *

Costa-Giomi, E. (2015). The long-term effects of childhood music instruction on intelligence

and general cognitive abilities. Update: Applications of Research in Music
Education, 33(2), 20-26. http://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314540661

Courey, S., Balogh, E., Siker, J., Paik, J. (2012). Academic music: Music instruction to engage
third grade students in learning basic fraction concepts. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 81. 251-278. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9395-9 *

Crncec, R., Wilson, S. J. & Prior, M. (2006). The cognitive and academic benefits of music to
children: Facts and fiction. Educational Psychology, 26(4), 579-594.
http://berkscountymusicboosters.wikispaces.com/file/view/The+Cog+%26+academ
ic.pdf

Dege, F. & Schwarzer, G. (2011). The effect of a music program on phonological awareness in
pre-schoolers. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1 – 7.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00124 *

Dege, F., Wehrum, S., Stark, R. & Schwarzer, G. (2009). Music training, cognitive abilities
and self-concept of ability in children. Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference of
European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music, Jyvaskyla, Finland.
http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-2009411239 *

10 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

Dos Santos-Luis, C., Monico, L. S. M., Almeida, L. S. & Coimbra, D. (2015). Exploring the
long-term associations between adolescents’ music training and academic
achievement. Musicae Scientiae, December 31.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1029864915623613 *

ESSA legislation: Senator Lamar Alexander, S.1177 – Every Student Succeeds Acts (114th
Congress (2015-2016), Became public law 114-95 on 12/10/2015. Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text#toc-
H7CA5D4E1FD83498896322A96A940ABD6

Fang, M. (2013, August 5). Public schools slash arts education and turn to private funding.
Thinkprogress. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org

Fetzer, L. (1994). Facilitating print awareness and literacy development with familiar
children’s songs (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database (Document ID 9519803). *

Foregard, M., Winner, E., Norton, A., Schlaug, G. (2008). Practicing a musical instrument in
childhood is associated with enhanced verbal ability and nonverbal reasoning. PLoS
ONE 3(10), e3566. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003566 *

Franklin M., Moore, K., Yip, C., Jonides, J., Rattray, K., & Moher, J. (2008). The effects of
musical training on verbal memory. Psychology of Music, 36(3), 353-365.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607086044

Fujioka, T., Ross, B., Kakigi, R., Pantev, C. & Trainor, L. J. (2006). One year of musical
training affects development of auditory cortical-evoked fields in young children.
Brain, 129, 2593-2608. http://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aw1247 *

Galicia Moyeda, I. X., Contreras Gomez, I. & Pena Flores, M. T. (2006). Implementing a
musical program to promote preschool children’s vocabulary development. Early
Childhood Research and Practice, 8(1). *

Gardiner, M. F., Fox, A., Knowles, F. & Jeffrey, D. (1996). Learning improved by arts
training. Nature, 381, 284. http://doi.org/10.1038/381284a0 *

Gibson, C., Folley, B. S. & Park, S. (2009). Enhanced divergent thinking and creativity in
musicians: A behavioral and near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain and Cognition,
69(1), 162-169. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/parklab/Gibson_Folley_Park_2009.pdf

Gooding. L. (2011). The effect of a music therapy social skills training program on improving
social competence in children and adolescents with social skills deficits. Journal of
Music Therapy, 48(4), 440-462. http://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/48.4.440 *

11 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

Graziano, A. B., Peterson, M. & Shaw, G. L. (1999). Enhanced learning of proportional math
through music training and spatial-temporal training. Neurological Research, 21,
139-52. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10100200 *

Gromko, J. E. (2005). The effect of music instruction on phonemic awareness in beginning

readers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(3), 199-209.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3598679 *

Gromko, J. & Poorman, A. (1998). The effect of music training on preschoolers’ spatial-
temporal task performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 199-209.
http://doi.org/10.2307/3345621 *

Groussard, M., La Joie, R., Rauchs, G., Landeau, B., Chetelat, G., Viader, F., Desgranges, B.,
Eustache, F. & Platel, H. (2010). When music and long-term memory interact: Effects
of musical expertise on functional and structural plasticity in the hippocampus. PLoS
ONE, 5 (10): e13225. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013225

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. http://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410370658

Harris. M. (2008). The effects of music instruction on learning in the Montessori classroom.
Montessori Life: A Publication of the American Montessori Society, 20(3), 24-31.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ804731

Helmrich, B. H. (2008). In concert: The relationship between middles school formal music
instruction and adolescent achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Document ID 3302711). *

Hetland, L. (2000a). Listening to Music Enhances Spatial-Temporal Reasoning: Evidence

for the "Mozart Effect". The Journal of Aesthetic Education 34(3/4), Special Issue,
The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows (Autumn-Winter, 105-
148. http://doi.org/10.2307/3333640

Hetland, L. (2000b). Learning to make music enhances spatial reasoning. Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), Special Issue, The arts and academic achievement:
What the evidence shows (Autumn-Winter), 179-238.
http://doi.org/10.2307/3333643

Ho, Y.C., Cheung, M. C. & Chan, A. S. (2003). Music training improves verbal but not visual
memory: Cross sectional and longitudinal explorations in children.
Neuropsychology, 17(3), 439-450. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0894-
4105.17.3.439 *

12 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

Hoffman, D. S. (1995). Relationships between academic achievement and participation in a
comprehensive and sequential keyboard-based public school music education
program (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (Document ID 8532900). *

Hogenes, Oers, Diekstra & Sklad (2016). The effects of music composition as a classroom
activity on engagement in music education and academic and music achievement: A
quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Music Education, 34(1) 32-48.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415584296 *

Hyde, K., Lerch, J., Norton, A., Winner, E., Schlaug, G., Evans, A., et al. (2009). Musical
training shapes structural brain development. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10),
http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5118-08.2009

Jaschke, A. C., Eggermont, L. H. P., Honing, H. & Scherder, E. J. A. (2013). Music education
and its effect on intellectual abilities in children: A systematic review. Review in the
Neurosciences, 24(6), 665-675. http://doi.org/10.1515/revneuro-2013-0023

Johnson, C. M. & Memmott, J. E. (2006). Examination of relationships between music

programs of differing quality and standardized test results. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 54(4), Winter, 293-307.
http://doi.org/10.1177/002242940605400403 *

Koelsch, S., Fritz, T., Schultz, K., Alsop, D. & Schlaug, G. (2005). Adults and children
processing music: An fMRI study. NeuroImage 25(4), 1068– 1076.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.050 *

Miendlearzewska, E. A. & Trost, W. J. (2014). How musical training affects cognitive

development: rhythm, reward and other modulating variables. Frontiers in
Neuroscience, 7, 1-18. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00279

Moreno, S., Marques, C., Santos, A., Santos, M., Castro, S., & Besson, M. (2009). Musical
training influences linguistic abilities in 8-year-old children: More evidence for brain
plasticity. Cerebral Cortex, 19(3), 712-723. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn120 *

Orsmond, G. I. & Miller, L. K. (1999). Cognitive, musicial and environmental correlates of

early music instruction. Psychology of Music, 27, 18-37.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735699271003 *

Overy, K., Norton, A., Cronin, K. T., Gaab, N., Alsop, D. C., Winner, E. & Schlaug, G. (2004).
Imaging melody and rhythm processing in young children. NeuroReport, 15(11),
1723-1726. http://www.musicianbrain.com/papers/Overy_Neuroreport.pdf

Parsad, B. & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary
schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-10 (NCES 2012-014). National Center for Education

13 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

 Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S., Department of Education,
Washington, DC. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012014rev.pdf

Piro, J. M. & Ortiz, C. (2009). The effect of piano lessons on the vocabulary and verbal
sequencing skills of primary grade students. Psychology of Music, 37(3), 325-347.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735608097248 *

Portowitz, A., Lichtenstein, O., Egorova, L. & Brand, E. (2009). Underlying mechanisms
linking music education and cognitive modifiability. Research Studies in Music
Education, 31(2), 107-128. http://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X09344378 *

Portowitz, A., Peppler, K. A. & Downton, M. (2014). In Harmony: A technology-based music

education model to enhance musical understanding and general learning skills.
International Journal of Music Education, 32(2) 242-260.
http://ijm.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/27/0255761413517056.full.pdf *

Rauscher, F. H. (1999). Music exposure and the development of spatial intelligence in

children. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 142, 35-47.
https://www.uwosh.edu/psychology/faculty-and-staff/frances-rauscher-
ph.d/Rauscher_1999.pdf *

Rauscher, F. H. (2002). Mozart and the mind: Factual and fictional effects of musical
enrichment. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of
psychological factors on education (pp. 269-278). New York: Academic Press.
http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/B978-012064455-1/50016-6

Rauscher, F. H. & Hinton, S. C. (2006). The Mozart Effect: Music Listening is Not Music
Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 233–238.
http://alliance.la.asu.edu/temporary/students/katie/MultipleIntelligenceMozart.pdf

Rauscher, F. H. & Hinton, S. C. (2011). Music instruction and its diverse extra-musical
benefits. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29(2), 215-226.
http://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2011.29.2.215

Rauscher, F. H., LeMieux, M. & Hinton, S. C. (2006, August). Quality piano instruction
affects at-risk elementary school children’s cognitive abilities and self-esteem.
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Music Perception & Cognition,
Bologna, Italy. *

Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., Levine, L. J., Wright, E. L., Dennis, W. R. & Newcomb, R. L.
(1997). Music training causes long-term enhancement of preschool children's spatial-
temporal reasoning. Neurological Research, 19(1), 2-8.
http://faculty.washington.edu/demorest/rauscher.pdf *

14 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

Rauscher, F. H., & Zupan, M. (2000). Classroom keyboard instruction improves
kindergarten children’s spatial-temporal performance: A field experiment. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 215–228. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-
2006(00)00050-8 *

Rickard, N. S., Bambrick, C. J. & Gill, A. (2012). Absence of widespread psychosocial and
cognitive effects of school-based music instruction in 10-13-year-old students.
International Journal of Music Education, 30(1), 57-78.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411431399 *

Roden, I., Kreutz, G. & Bongard, S. (2012). Effects of a school-based instrumental music
program on verbal and visual memory in primary school children: A longitudinal
study. Frontiers in Psychology, December.
http://doi.org/10.2289/fpsyg.2012.00572 *

Roden, I., Grube, D., Bongard, S. & Kreutz, G. (2014). Does music training enhance working
memory performance? Findings from a quasi-experimental longitudinal study.
Psychology of Music, 42(2), 284-298. http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735612471239 *

Rossini, J. W. (2000). A study of the relationship of music instruction and academic

achievement among elementary school students (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Document ID 9970391). *

Schellenberg, E. G. (2004). Music lessons enhance IQ. Psychological Science, 15(8), 511-514.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00711.x *

Schellenberg, E. G. (2010). Examining the association between music lessons and

intelligence. British Journal of Psychology, (September), 1-20.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02000.x

Schellenberg, E. G. & Mankarious, M. (2012). Music training and emotion comprehension in

childhood. Emotion, 12(5), 887-891.
http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3psygs/SchellenbergMankarious2012.pdf *

Schlaug, G., Norton, A., Overy, K., & Winner, E. (2005). Effects of music training on the
child’s brain and cognitive development. Annals of the New York Academy of
Science, 1060, 219–230. http://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1360.015 *

Schneider, T. W. & Klotz, J. (2000, November). The impact of music education and athletic
participation on academic achievement. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Meeting
of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Bowling Green, KY. *

Southgate, D. E. & Roscigno, V. J. (2009). The Impact of Music on Childhood and

Adolescent Achievement. Social Science Quarterly, 90(1), 4-21.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00598.x

15 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

Standley, J. M. (1996). A meta-analysis on the effects of music reinforcement for
education/therapy objectives. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(2), 105-
133. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345665

Trainor, L. J., Shahin, A. J. & Roberts, L. E. (2009). Understanding the Benefits of Musical
Training: Effects on Oscillatory Brain Activity. The Neurosciences and Music III—
Disorders and Plasticity: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1169, 133–
142. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04589.x

Tsang, C. D. & Conrad, N. J. (2011). Music training and reading readiness. Music Perception:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29(2), 157-163.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/mp.2011.29.2.157 *

Ulfarsdottir, L. O. & Erwin, P. G. (1999). The influence of music on social cognitive skills.
The Arts in Psychotherapy, 26(2), 81-84. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-
4556(98)00064-1 *

Vaughn, K. (2000) Music and Mathematics: Modest support for the oft-claimed relationship.
Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(3/4), Special Issue: The Arts and Academic
Achievement: What the Evidence Shows (Fall/Winter 2000), 149-166.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333641

Wan, C. Y & Schlaug, G. (2010). Music making as a tool for promoting brain plasticity across
the life span. The Neuroscientist, 16(5), 566-577.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1073858410377805

Wetter, O. E., Koerner, F. & Schwaninger, A. (2009). Does musical training improve school
performance? Instructional Science, 37, 365-374. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-
008-9052-y *

Woodall, M. & Chea-Annan, M. (2013, June 1). Philadelphia SRC approves doomsday school
budget. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved from http://www.philly.com

Yoon, J. N. (2000). Music in the classroom: Its influence on children’s brain development,
academic performance and practical life skills. ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED442707.

16 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

REVIEW AUTHORS

Lead review author: The lead author is the person who develops and co-ordinates the
review team, discusses and assigns roles for individual members of the review team, liaises
with the editorial base and takes responsibility for the on-going updates of the review.

Name: Gabrielle Chapman

Title: Principal Investigator
Affiliation: Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University
Address: 230 Appleton Place, PMB 181
City, State, Province or County: Nashville, TN
Postal Code: 37203-5721
Country: USA
Phone: 615-322-6024
Email: gabrielle.chapman@vanderbilt.edu

Co-author(s): (There should be at least one co-author)

Name: Jan Morrison
Title: Project Manager
Affiliation: Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University
Address: 230 Appleton Place, PMB 181
City, State, Province or County: Nashville, TN
Postal Code: 37203-5721
Country: USA
Phone: 615-322-8546
Email: jan.morrison@vanderbilt.edu

Co-author(s): (There should be at least one co-author)

Name: Mark Lipsey
Title: Research Director
Affiliation: Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University
Address: 230 Appleton Place, PMB 181
City, State, Province or County: Nashville, TN
Postal Code: 37203-5721
Country: USA
Phone: 615-343-2696
Email: mark.w.lipsey@vanderbilt.edu

17 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

ROLES AND RESP ONSIBI LITIES

• Content: Gabrielle Chapman and Jan Morrison have been working in the area of music
education’s effect on cognition and socio-emotional capacity for several years. They were
awarded a grant from Vanderbilt’s Curb Center to pursue a primary pilot study of a local
music education program in 2013 and have managed to build collaborations with faculty
interested in the effects of music education across several disciplines. Their conference
posters in this area have garnered a great deal of interest from the field as their multi-
disciplinary approach has provided unique insights into the impacts of music education.
While not in music education specifically, Lipsey’s exceptional knowledge of education-
based intervention studies and education research adds a great deal of expertise to the
review team.

• Systematic review methods: Chapman, a former doctoral student and current colleague
of Lipsey, has a great deal of methodological knowledge related to systematic reviews and
has worked on numerous meta-analysis projects. Chapman has assisted in the development
of a guidance document for evaluation of meta-analytic projects and contributed to the
development of a meta-analysis tool for Crimesolutions.gov through Development Service
Group, Inc. Additionally, Chapman has published a review and overseen the update of some
of the largest meta-analytic databases in the world. Morrison has worked with both
Chapman and Lipsey as an exceptional project coordinator on several meta-analysis projects
at Peabody Research Institute for over a decade. Lipsey has an extremely high level of
expertise in systematic review methods as he has published many completed critically
acclaimed reviews, taught graduate level meta-analysis classes, is co-author of a textbook
(Practical Meta-Analysis), was Co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Research Synthesis Methods
and currently serves as a Features Editor, and served as a co-Chair of the Campbell
Collaboration Steering Group.

• Statistical analysis: Chapman, has a great deal of statistical analysis knowledge and
experience relative to meta-analysis having published a completed review and conducted
analysis for solo meta-analysis projects and in collaboration with Lipsey. Morrison has
competently assisted both Chapman and Lipsey in statistical analysis on numerous meta-
analysis projects over more than a decade. Lipsey has an extremely high level of expertise in
statistical analysis, especially analysis associated with a meta-analysis project. He has
published innumerable reviews, taught graduate level meta-analysis classes, is co-author of a
textbook (Practical Meta-Analysis), was Co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Research
Synthesis Methods, currently serves as a Features Editor, and served as a co-Chair of the
Campbell Collaboration Steering Group.

• Information retrieval: While we do not have a dedicated information retrieval expert on

the review team, the authors and the staff at Peabody Research Institute have developed
their own expertise in this area over the past decade (decades in the case of Lipsey)
conducting a large number of meta-analysis research projects. Morrison in particular has

18 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

successfully overseen complex and extremely large literature searches, managed retrieval,
and assisted in the development of coding databases for more than 10 large meta-analysis
projects.

Note: CVs for Chapman, Lipsey, and Morrison are attached and provide additional details

FUNDING

None of the members of the review team currently receive any financial support for the
proposed music education meta-analysis project. This is the first and only funding proposal
this team has submitted for this meta-analysis project either individually or together.

POTENTIAL CONF LICTS OF INTEREST

No member of the review team has a financial interest or other conflicts of interest in this
project or the results.

PRELIMINARY TIMEFRAM E

• Date you plan to submit a draft protocol:

We will submit the draft protocol within four (4) months of title approval.

• Date you plan to submit a draft review:

We will submit a draft review within twelve (12) months of protocol approval.

19 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org

AUTHOR DECLARATION

Authors’ responsibilities
By completing this form, you accept responsibility for preparing, maintaining, and updating
the review in accordance with Campbell Collaboration policy. The Coordinating Group will
provide as much support as possible to assist with the preparation of the review.

A draft protocol must be submitted to the Coordinating Group within one year of title
acceptance. If drafts are not submitted before the agreed deadlines, or if we are unable to
contact you for an extended period, the Coordinating Group has the right to de-register the
title or transfer the title to alternative authors. The Coordinating Group also has the right to
de-register or transfer the title if it does not meet the standards of the Coordinating Group
and/or the Campbell Collaboration.

You accept responsibility for maintaining the review in light of new evidence, comments and
criticisms, and other developments, and updating the review every five years, when
substantial new evidence becomes available, or, if requested, transferring responsibility for
maintaining the review to others as agreed with the Coordinating Group.

Publication in the Campbell Library

The support of the Coordinating Group in preparing your review is conditional upon your
agreement to publish the protocol, finished review, and subsequent updates in the Campbell
Library. The Campbell Collaboration places no restrictions on publication of the findings of a
Campbell systematic review in a more abbreviated form as a journal article either before or
after the publication of the monograph version in Campbell Systematic Reviews. Some
journals, however, have restrictions that preclude publication of findings that have been, or
will be, reported elsewhere and authors considering publication in such a journal should be
aware of possible conflict with publication of the monograph version in Campbell Systematic
Reviews. Publication in a journal after publication or in press status in Campbell Systematic
Reviews should acknowledge the Campbell version and include a citation to it. Note that
systematic reviews published in Campbell Systematic Reviews and co-registered with the
Cochrane Collaboration may have additional requirements or restrictions for co-publication.
Review authors accept responsibility for meeting any co-publication requirements.

I understand the commitment required to undertake a Campbell review, and

agree to publish in the Campbell Library. Signed on behalf of the authors:

Form completed by: Gabrielle Lynn Chapman Date:28 March 2016

20 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org