This discussion thus far has focussed on the effect of musical training on cognitive function and the challenge of identifying a causal relationship. It has highlighted the methodological difficulties and conflicting evidence that exists within the literature in respect of associations between music training in all its forms and other learning. Schellenberg’s criticisms of the empirical literature are highly pertinent to the
identification of a causal relationship between music and other learning, particularly in the design of studies in order to take account of and control for confounding variables. However, his explanation that musical benefits are dependent on genetic pre-
dispositions does not take account of empirical, case-study and qualitative evidence in educational, therapeutic and community settings, which highlights (albeit by
individual’s own accounts or the observations of others) the wider individual and collective impact of music across diverse populations with differing levels of cognitive function, musical aptitude and interest. Such research notes the wider benefits of music are available to all, regardless of social background (Costa-Giomi, 1999), previous musical ability, or stage of life (Burnard, 2002; Fassbender, 1996; Lamont, 2011; Lecanuet, 1996; Miell & MacDonald, 2000; Papousek, 1996; Pitts, 2009; Trainor, Shahin & Roberts, 2003; Young, 2003, 2008). Such a view is supported by evidence from music therapy (Bunt, 2002; Bunt & Hoskyns, 2004; Magee, 2002; Pavlicevic, 1997), school and community-based music projects (CUREE, 2011; MacDonald & Miell, 2002) and special education (Ockelford, 1998, 2008; Welch, Ockelford & Zimmerman, 2001).
Schellenberg’s claims that musicians’ observed advantages must be “instantiated somewhere in the brain” (Schellenberg, 2011a, p. 296) and are reflective of high functioning individuals, attract criticism for his dismissal of the role learning can play, particularly in brain development and rehabilitation (Bialystok, 2011). Whilst the role of genetic predispositions certainly cannot be ignored, by Schellenberg’s own
admission, genetic differences only account for 50-70% of individual difference (2009, 2011a), thus the role of other environmental factors or mediating factors cannot
similarly be discounted. This may seem obvious, but at times the literature appears polarised by this debate, although there is increasing recognition of each research strand’s position and contribution and the need to adopt a more holistic approach.
2.9.1 Environmental Influences
Stewart and Williamon (2008) suggest that the foundations for learning are laid down in early human development. Genetic pre-dispositions no doubt exist at this early stage of life, however, as highlighted earlier, the environmental influence of early proto-musical interactions appear to play an important role in the early development of good auditory function through the social interaction of parent and child. This challenges the notion that good listening skills are solely derived from one’s genetic inheritance alone. As neonatal (McMahon, Wintermark & Lahav, 2012) and theoretical research (Trevarthen, 2000) suggest, being deprived of this early stimulating auditory and arguably, musical learning environment can have a negative impact on a child’s cognitive and emotional development.
Despite Schellenberg’s criticism of brain plasticity, Schellenberg (2009) and Kraus and Chandrasekaran (2010) in their separate reviews of the literature, each point to research that suggests positive associations between music training and other cognitive abilities are stronger if musical learning occurs at a younger age, preferably before seven years of age. Schellenberg suggests “the possibility of a sensitive period in childhood when music lessons are most likely to lead to non-musical benefits” (2009, p. 7).
Nonetheless, Costa-Giomi’s (1999) longitudinal study of the effects of piano lessons over three years indicated that observed musical benefits did not extend beyond the third year, suggesting that there is not just an optimal age at which to start musical training, but also a period over which such musical benefits may have greatest impact. Reflecting this view, research attention is now starting to recognise and consider the influence of pedagogical factors by investigating the nature, frequency and length of
musical training and wider outcomes (François, Tillman & Schön, 2012; Kraus & Chandrasekaran, 2010; Schellenberg & Winner, 2011),
2.9.2 Pedagogical Factors
This review of the literature has deliberately highlighted how song, rhythm and movement are involved in both musical and non-musical learning, in an attempt to try and tease out the central elements of musical learning from intervention studies involving a variety of musical training. Whilst intervention studies are highly informative in terms of defining the wider impact of music on other learning,
historically the nature of training has not been the central focus, leading to uncertainty as to what might constitute the best method or musical approach. Until very recently neuroscience intervention studies provided limited details of the exact nature of musical training in their reporting and earlier studies focussed on professional musicians with a lifetime of intensive, formal and advanced music training experience.
Given the wide variety and quality of musical learning opportunities that exist inside and outside of formal education it cannot be assumed that all musicians receive similar musical training or may achieve the level of training of a professional musician. Similarly, as Ockelford (2000) highlights, the notion of musical training suggests a set of externally defined skills to be learnt. Much research has focussed on the impact of formal instrumental lessons. However, this is to ignore the influence of school-based music education, which may confer some training benefits, evident in the increasing literature investigating the impact of school music education programmes (CUREE, 2011; Slater, Tierney & Kraus, 2013).
The term “musical training” can also disguise a variety of different musical pedagogical approaches, which may emphasise specific aspects of musical learning. For example, musical pedagogical approaches put forward by Kodály (Choksy, 1981), Orff (Orff & Keetman, 1950), Dalcroze (1916) and Suzuki (1969) focus on aural musical training, which might yield different results in relation to non-musical outcomes compared to musical training focussed solely on notation-based learning for example. Likewise, “musical training” does not necessarily bring to mind spontaneous, cultural and social forms of informal music-making that are gaining recognition for the benefits for health and wellbeing (Saarikallio, 2012). Nor early childhood interactions with parents and caregivers discussed earlier. In this informal musical context, as in a therapeutic context, the musical focus is centred on the exposure, experience and engagement with
music rather than the learning of any instrumental skill. Thus, the notion of “musical training” or ” musician” as defined in intervention studies needs to be treated with care. Isolating the causes and effects of music remains a key research interest, which is particularly useful in informing the wider therapeutic, clinical and educational
application of music. Nevertheless, this is difficult given the ubiquitous and complex nature of music and the variety of individual experiences of music and the influence of underlying or mediating factors. Thus, as already mentioned some question whether identifying a causal relationship between music and observed effects is possible or necessary (Hargreaves & Aksentijevic, 2011). Trevarthen (2000) too warns of the dangers of isolating separate processes for analysis; an approach that risks losing sight of music’s joyful, aesthetic qualities and holistic impact.
Patel (2012) notes that other forms of training may lead to similar effects to those noted here. Indeed positive effects can be achieved through auditory listening training
programmes that do not involve music (Kraus & Anderson, 2013; Nicol & Kraus, 2005; Patel, 2012). Similarly, it might be argued such effects could be developed just as easily through other artistic or sporting activities or derive from increased adult attention or small group settings (Neville et al., 2009). However, Patel suggests it is perhaps the social, imitative and emotional context of music-making that differentiates music from other training programmes and interventions; in the opportunities it
provides for human interaction, which in itself may act as another mediating factor, and the provision of an enjoyable learning context, through which other skills can be
explored.