Greasing the Skids of the Musical Mind

Abstract

Researchers suggest that musical training prepares the mind for learning; however, there are many obstacles to the implementation of research to practice in music education. The purpose of this article is to apply key principles of mind brain education to music education and to evaluate how music prepares the mind for learning. Practical teaching strategies and approaches are presented to maximize benefits for musical and general cognitive development. Application of such strategies and approaches discussed in mind brain education may enhance music classroom teaching and learning.

Keywords

cognitive development education mind brain music education music learning

As music educators, our primary goal is preparing students for success in life. Success in teaching stems from developing appropriate strategies that assist students in making smooth connections, greasing the skids of the mind. Greasing the skids, a phrase that originated in the logging industry, refers to greased planks used to slide heavy objects. When greased, the objects accelerated toward a destination. Our role as music educators is to facilitate an increase in momentum that can help our students more easily acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to be successful lifelong learners. One way we can prepare students for success is to employ best teaching practices based on substantiated research. The purpose of this article is to relate key principles of mind brain education (MBE), a growing field that merges evidence-based research from diverse disciplines with educational practice to music education, and describe, based on research, how music prepares the mind for learning. Few studies provide empirical evidence to support teaching and learning practices in the general music classroom. Implications provided in the form of strategies and approaches necessary for music programs to maximize benefits for general cognitive development serve as a prescription for the application of this research to practice.

For many educators, research appears inaccessible and thus contains low ecological validity (Fischer, 2009). Research conducted in a lab setting may or may not be applicable in a classroom setting. In addition to applicability, research often neglects the contributions of educators and learners in examining key questions or developing appropriate methodologies or pedagogical practices. Educators are in the best possible position to use knowledge about learning mechanisms, mental capacities, and cognitive constraints to guide learning goals and activities in their classrooms, yet educators are rarely included in research projects (Pasquinelli, 2013).

Five Key Principles of Mind Brain Education

These issues led to the development of the field of MBE. MBE merges research findings from many disciplines, including biology, cognitive science, human development, and education with the purpose of linking research to practice (Fischer, 2009). Music educators can benefit from learning about the key principles of MBE and its implications for music-teaching and -learning practices. Music-teaching strategies and approaches based on solid research findings could provide music educators with the tools necessary to promote musical understanding. By developing a better understanding of these principles and their application, music educators have the capability to engineer curriculum based on substantiated research, validate the inclusion of current teaching practices, and develop a better understanding of student strengths and weaknesses. Five key principles of MBE will guide this discussion and serve as an opportunity to consider how each relates to music teaching and learning (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2011).

Uniqueness

The first key principle of MBE suggests that each brain is as unique as a fingerprint. We have five fingers on each hand, but each person still has unique finger prints. We can play the same notes on the page; however, each of us has a slightly different interpretation, or musical nuance. Even those who may be identical twins have different experiences contributing to unique distinctions in each twin’s neural architecture (Park, Park, & Polk, 2012). Despite differences in individual experiences, each person’s neural architecture is shaped through common patterns of brain development, including neuroplasticity, neurogenesis, and epigenesis.

The musician’s brain has often been suggested to be a model of neuroplasticity, as musical training, a highly complex sensorimotor task, can alter the neural architecture of the brain. Neuroplasticity refers to the brain’s ability to rewire itself with new connections based on learning. Neuroplastic changes in areas such as the corpus callosum (c-shaped structure that connects the right and left hemispheres), cerebellum (an area that assists with motor control), primary motor area (area associated with planning and executing movements), somatosensory areas (sensory areas), and superior and inferior temporal gyrus (areas associated with visual and auditory processing in the temporal lobe), bilaterally (both hemispheres), have been linked to musical training (Gaser & Schlaug, 2003; Schlaug, Jancke, Huang, Staiger, & Steimmetz, 1995). Learning music has the capacity to increase the likelihood of neuroplasticity; however, it is important to understand that the highest degree of neuroplasticity occurs in the first 6 months of new skill acquisition. Therefore, it is important for general music educators to continually challenge students through new musical skill acquisition (i.e., performance, composition, and arranging).

Early experiences while in the womb can influence neural development and future neural activity is influenced by environmental experiences. Neurogenesis, most often associated with prenatal development, refers to the birth of new neurons usually from stem cells or progenitor cells. Epigenesis refers to the relationship of environmentally derived neural activity and the influence of genetic code on neural activity. Understanding common patterns related to brain development can contribute to an understanding of how these patterns influence our classroom choices. Some of the most critical choices in the music classroom include curricular design and assessment practices. Curricular choices could be made based on developmental stages influenced by neural development. For instance, listening to pieces that include solo instruments at an early age can contribute to neural changes that prime the brain for encoding pitch relationships (musical intervals) and isolating auditory events (Kraus & Chandrasekaran, 2010). Over time, it is most relevant that general music educators include listening examples with combined instrumentation that further force the listener to segregate auditory events and discuss relationships and patterns such as those in formal elements (i.e., call and response sections or theme and variations). In addition, measurement of music-learning outcomes should include developmentally relevant assessments that serve as a motivating tool for initiating new learning. For instance, young children are motivated by cooperative games as potential assessment mechanisms, whereas older children in upper elementary school prefer a more competitive approach to assessment (Stipek & MacIver, 1989).

Context and Ability

The second important principle of MBE includes acknowledging that context and ability influence learning. The context of learning includes the environment, motivation, and prior knowledge. If we were to compare an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) image of a 3-year-old child who experienced an enriching environment with a child who suffered from extreme neglect, we would see a clear difference in the structural development of the brain (Perry, 2002). Results of a diagnostic assessment on this child may also reveal stunted cognitive performance. Our environment has the capacity to affect learning and retention. Research suggests that the adult brain is shaped by musical experiences in childhood (Skoe & Kraus, 2012). Most children arrive at our classroom doors not as blank slates but as unique individuals with varied backgrounds and skills.

Learning success is influenced by one’s potential, biological genes, and previous experiences. Some students are more prepared for learning from birth than others. To fully acknowledge individual differences and embrace strengths while building on potential areas of need is an important and often daunting task for music educators in general music with large teaching loads complicated by increased class size. A challenge is to examine different strategies and approaches for assisting each student to maximize his or her potential. At the beginning of each year, conduct a pretest as a diagnostic for each child. While many teachers conduct independent diagnostic measures, few share these data with the students. Students need to be aware of their strengths and weaknesses. Students share responsibility for gaining new knowledge and skills through instruction. Diagnostic measures can be a performance piece or sight-reading task, or a song selected to be taught in the near future; this does not necessarily include a paper-and-pencil measure. Diagnostic data could serve as a potential advocacy tool in discussions with parents and administration later in the year. At this point, a goal might be to learn about the skills and competencies unique to a group of students. Based on each student’s musical development and the National Standards for Music Education, educators should focus on developing skills and competencies, rectifying any deficiencies, and design a curriculum that includes opportunities for differentiated instruction.

Differentiated instruction often takes a minimum of 3 years to fully implement but can be successfully be applied to learners of all ages. There are many ways to differentiate instruction, such as assigning flexible groupings for a variety of independent skills. Another way to differentiate may include providing differential levels of appropriate challenge per learning group and thus adapting formative assessments to suit specific challenges addressed. For instance, multilayered Orff arrangements that include simple and complex ostinati could address the needs of learners at different levels. Dividing the class into learning ensembles with players of differential abilities and then hosting small break-out sessions that include players with similar abilities, a common strategy in ensembles, could also be applied in general music classes. As an extension activity, small groups of students could create simple and complex accompaniments to various specifications to reinforce behavioral objectives. Questioning the class about the arrangements to discuss what makes each arrangement manageable and challenging will help students make and justify musical decisions. How did those decisions affect the sound of the arrangement? Did those decisions accomplish the objective? How can the level of complexity be increased, and how can it influence future learning objectives?

Another level of differentiation can stem from creating parallel objectives as part of a KUD (Know, Understand, and Do) chart. Creating KUD charts can help communicate students’, parents’, and administration’s daily objectives. A “Know” statement will describe the previously accomplished skills or understood concepts. The “Understand” statement should provide information about the focus of the lesson or the enduring understanding that should be retained. The “Do” statement will highlight the behavioral objectives from the lesson and indicate the active means for learning the concept or skill. KUD charts can be based on the skill deficiencies detected in a diagnostic measure and should be adapted to fit the learning needs of the class. While teaching a performance group or ensemble class, differentiated instruction could include someone playing Flute 1, Flute 2, or even Flute 3 parts. In most cases, independent parts are already differentiated based on skill level.

Level of Experience

The third MBE principle is that the brain is changed by experience. Hebb’s (1949) principle, “neurons that fire together, wire together,” refers to the influence of life experiences on changes in the brain. Experiences help establish and create meaning, stimulating neural activity. Areas of the brain not strengthened will atrophy. Music educators should strive to provide diverse learning opportunities to students that offer multiple methods for analysis, synthesis, and interpretation. Include challenging materials and repertoire as this will contribute to fostering new neurological connections. Research studies examining the ramifications of cognitive training cite task novelty as a key element to training the brain (Bugos, 2010; Bugos, Perlstein, McCrae, Brophy, & Bedenbaugh, 2007; Smith et al., 2009). One example of task novelty may be adding an error detection exercise within a rehearsal in which student comments are solicited on how to rectify performance issues. Another approach may be to include opportunities for students to apply skills and concepts through creative music-making activities. Improvisatory tasks or musical extemporization requires introducing novelty in the moment. Application of key concepts in novel ways will increase attention and time on task. Novelty in a general music classroom could include switching instruments, instrumental parts, modulating to a new key, or performing a variation. Musical tasks that require students to include new skills or perform music in a varied way will allow them to apply critical thinking skills contributing to cognitive flexibility.

Lifelong Neuroplasticity

The fourth principle of MBE emphasizes that neuroplasticity occurs throughout the life span, in addition to the especially high degrees of plasticity demonstrated in periods such as early childhood. If the human brain has the capacity to reorganize resulting from music learning, it is important that musical skills associated with stages of development are viewed as benchmarks, not roadblocks. NAfME supports music learning throughout the life span, yet few programs are offered to those beyond the college years. How many adults may be interested in contributing to your program? Include adults from your school, such as parents, staff, colleagues, and administration, in your concerts or events. Invite them to rehearsals and provide materials so that they may actively participate in your ensemble. In addition to developing a musical bond with these adults, your students will benefit from understanding that music making is a lifelong activity. Music participation and learning can continue throughout the life span. Provide opportunities for your students to perform with or listen to a community music ensemble. In addition, adults can add to the classroom experience by providing a wealth of previous musical experiences from which to draw on. For instance, one of our custodial staff members shared Jamaican traditions and drumming with our class studying the music of Jamaica.

Building Connections

The fifth principle of MBE refers to the connection of new information to old information. If you are planning a trip to a new location, it is often helpful if someone provides directions based on a point of reference familiar to you. Similarly, when a student learns, references to previous knowledge or skills are made; without these learning would not occur. Anchoring or scaffolding information is essential to providing a firm foundation for student learning and retention. Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) used the term scaffolding to refer to “those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence” (p. 90). One might wonder how to scaffold creative music-making activities. When learning a language, children are provided ample interaction with words and spoken sequences. In music, educators should provide opportunities for purposeful play with songs, rhythmic chants or poems, and melodic sequences. Children should be taught to perform patterns differently by experimenting with inflections, dynamics, and articulations. Older students can develop variations on musical exercises achieved through sectionals or cooperative small group learning experiences. To be successful at varying repertoire, students must reflect on previously performed musical styles and characteristics of various genres. Through practical experiences processing sounds, manipulating derivatives of patterns, and offering contextually related phrases or endings, students learn to think in a divergent fashion and develop the necessary foundation for musical creative thinking. Scaffolding can also be present when musical stimuli are subtracted. Subtraction of musical stimuli can contribute to the development of audiation or inner hearing. Omission of pitches in songs with much repetition, such as Bingo, will assist elementary students in developing audiation.

Scaffolding will contribute to the strength of the connections that is necessary to maintain. There is some truth to the old adage, “if you do not use it, you may lose it.” Synaptic pruning, a process which eliminates extra neurons or synapses to increase neural efficiency, occurs at different stages throughout the life span. From embryonic stage until age 2 years, almost 40,000 connections are made per second, and by age 10, nearly half of these connections will be pruned (Chechik, Meilijson, & Ruppin, 1998). Pruning occurs into adulthood and will vary based on brain region.

Music’s Role on Cognitive Development

Learning is not a disembodied process. There are many studies that implicate specific neuroanatomical parts of the brain in learning and processing of music. This portion of the article will provide an overview of current literature findings and help music educators understand how musical training relates to the structures often discussed in current research findings. First, we must consider musical processing with regard to tonal, melodic, and rhythmic perception. Many researchers suggest the right primary auditory cortex, the part of the brain responsible for auditory information, is responsible for fine-grained representation of pitch information, while the left auditory regions may be responsible for rapid processing of speech (Zatorre, 2003). This is an example of how we use the whole brain or both hemispheres, but we may rely on one or other hemisphere in the performance of a sufficiently narrow task. Even young children are quite accomplished at fine-grain auditory discrimination. For instance, infants easily discriminate a mother’s voice compared with unfamiliar adult voices. A music-teaching implication is that children at all ages are primed to learn about timbre discrimination. General music teachers need not wait until a child reaches third or fourth grade to include instrumental lessons that discriminate timbre differences in orchestral instruments. Young children can be taught to critically evaluate differences in how instruments sound and how sounds are produced.

Auditory processing occurs in the primary auditory cortex: primary and secondary areas. The primary auditory cortex is an area located in the temporal lobe also known as Heschel’s gyrus or Broadmann’s area (BA) 41 and 42. The auditory cortex is tonotopically organized, this means that the structures of neurons in this region are organized to respond to a specialized frequency arrangement. When listening to melodies, research shows bilateral activation of the BA 22, also known as superior temporal gyrus. Research suggests that melodic generation activates the supplementary motor area, primary motor cortex, and frontal operculum bilaterally. However, melodic generation is often associated with a more intense activation on the right side of the auditory cortex and more diffuse activation on the left side (Brown, Martinez, & Parsons, 2006; Ellis et al., 2012). While language processing tends to favor the left hemisphere and music the right hemisphere, sung melodies and spoken sentences share many of the same bilateral activation patterns in the brain. Locations for music processing are located in close proximity to those used to process speech. While music and speech are processed in similar areas, different parts of the brain are engaged during speech verses a song. Therefore, usage of language-based music activities in chants, poems, and ostinati are important, but these are no substitute for melodic material in songs.

Rhythmic processing also contains some overlap with speech and language areas. Until recently, rhythmic perception research suggested activations in areas associated with motor tasks are important in performing on a musical instrument, for example, the basal ganglia (part of the brain responsible for involuntary movements; Grahn & Rowe, 2009), motor cortices (area of the brain responsible for control and planning of motor movements; Bengtsson et al., 2008), and the cerebellum (area of the brain responsible for motor coordination; Grahn & Rowe, 2009). Imaging data in jazz drummers suggest inclusion of the auditory cortex and left hemispheric supermarginal gyrus, an area accredited with processing of linguistic syntax (Herdener et al., 2014). In addition, hemispheric differences were found. Stronger activations in the right hemisphere were found for regular patterns of syncopated rhythmic structures, and stronger activations in the left hemisphere were found for rhythms with no relation to previously heard patterns. An implication from this research lies in the importance of drawing attention to rhythmic patterns and the ability to discriminate between specific patterns and novel rhythmic structures.

Second, many researchers have examined the role of musical training and development with regard to cognitive transfer (learning within and across domains) in executive functions, such as processing speed (time to retain information or complete a task; Bugos, 2010; Bugos & Mostafa, 2011), verbal memory (ability to recall words; Chan, Ho, & Cheung, 1998; Ho, Cheung, & Chan, 2003; Rickard, Vasquez, Murphy, Gill, & Toukhsati, 2010), spatial manipulation (ability to understand spatial relationships; Foster, Halpern, & Zatorre, 2013; Hetland, 2000; Rauscher, Shaw, & Levine, 1997), and inhibition (conscious or unconscious restraint of a specific behavior; Bugos, 2010; Dege, Kubicek, & Schwarzer, 2011). While correlation does not imply causation, the number of studies with evidence suggesting cognitive transfer has doubled in recent years. While we are unclear as to whether musical training can affect cognitive performance or whether those with higher intellectual faculties enroll in music programs, results of several studies suggest positive outcomes associated with music learning throughout the life span. While this should not be the primary reason for teaching music, the knowledge of specific cognitive processes trained in learning music could lead to a better understanding of how to teach music. For instance, children without previous formal music training may need additional time in a general music lesson to incorporate visual–spatial skills necessary for using pitch-based instruments such as keyboards, guitars, or xylophones compared with those with previous formal music instruction. There is no substitution for continued authentic instrumental experiences to develop visuospatial skills and higher cognitive processes such as processing speed.

Evidence-based practice, often mandated in some fields, is a real possibility for the future in music education. In music education, teaching practices are often implemented without any evidence to support enhancement in teaching or learning outcomes. This is in contrast to other fields, such as medicine, science, and industry, where research science is used to inform practical application. For instance, practitioners and scientists work together in teaching hospitals, which result in large-scale clinical trials and outcome-based interventions (Fischer, 2009). Effective education is just as vital as medical treatment; yet researchers and educators spend little time evaluating outcomes of specific pedagogies, approaches, or methods. Even pedagogies, approaches, and methods that appear to work for one school should be empirically evaluated to determine the strength and level of effectiveness. There is a considerable need for schools to get involved in conducting research in music education that can translate to practical application in the general music classroom. The inclusion of schools in meaningful research is not a new idea. In fact, from 1896 to 1904, John Dewey acknowledged these inconsistencies in educational research and suggested careful examination of teaching and learning effectiveness through the establishment of lab schools, schools designed to conduct research for the purpose of improving educational practices. Dewey predicted that lab schools would “revolutionize the American schooling system, and ultimately achieve his goal of fostering a true participatory democracy” (Benson, Harkavy, & Puckett, 2007, p. 24). While a few lab schools exist today, most do not serve the purpose originally intended. Despite the fact that many lab schools have a good reputation for high-quality education; Dewey envisioned an infrastructure that could support the study of teaching and learning effectiveness with the intent on improving student learning and educational practices. The vision consisted of research collaborations between researchers and educators. Research findings were then to be disseminated broadly to other schools beyond the confines of the lab school.

Music educators can benefit from developing an understanding of current scientific research as well as developing teaching practices based on research findings. Knowledge of research from a variety of disciplines, including education, science, and neuroscience, contributes to a better understanding of how students process and perform music. In addition, research-based principles of MBE can serve as a guide from which to develop our lessons, critically reflect on teaching practices, and inspire future music education research. The field of MBE offers educators the opportunity to learn more about the relationship between teaching and learning in the context of scientific research findings. Applications of the principles of MBE can help music educators think critically about issues in our classrooms, prevent overgeneralizations, and enable student success. Music educators can build on these principles and generate new research questions that could serve as the basis for collaborative future research studies between music educators, researchers, composers, and performers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Jennifer A. Bugos is an Assistant Professor of Music Education at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include the neurological basis for music perception and cognition with regard to human development, lifespan learning, and cognitive transfer.

References

Bengtsson

S. L.

Ullen

Ehrsson

Hashimoto

Kito

Naito

. . .Sadato

(2008). Listening to rhythms activates motor and premotor cortices. Cortex, 7, 1–10.

Benson

Harkavy

Puckett

(2007). Dewey’s dream: Universities and democracies in an age of education reform. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Brown

Martinez

M. J.

Parsons

L. M.

(2006). Music and language side by side in the brain: A PET Study of the generation of melodies and sentences. European Journal of Neurosciences, 23, 2791–2803.

Bugos

J. A.

(2010). The benefits of music instruction on processing speed, verbal fluency, and cognitive control in aging. Music Education Research International, 4, 1–9.

Bugos

J. A.

Mostafa

(2011). Musical training enhances information processing speed. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 187, 7–18.

Bugos

J. A.

Perlstein

W. A.

Brophy

T. S.

McCrae

Bedenbaugh

P. B.

(2007). Individualized piano instruction enhances executive functioning and working memory in older adults. Aging and Mental Health, 11, 464–471.

Chan

A. S.

Y. C.

Cheung

M. C.

(1998). Music training improves verbal memory. Nature, 396, 128.

Chechik

Meilijson

Ruppin

(1998). Synaptic pruning in development: A computational account. Neural Computation, 10, 1759-1777. doi:10.1162/089976698300017124

Dege

Kubicek

Schwarzer

(2011). Music lessons and intelligence: A relation mediated by executive functions. Music Perception, 29, 195–201.

10.

Ellis

R. J.

Norton

A. C.

Overy

Winner

Alsop

D. C.

Schlaug

(2012). Differentiating maturational and training influences on fMRI activation during music processing. NeuroImage, 60, 1902–1912.

11.

Fischer

K. W.

(2009). Mind brain and education: Building a scientific groundwork for learning and teaching. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 3–16.

12.

Foster

N. E. V.

Halpern

A. R.

Zatorre

R. J.

(2013). Common parietal activation in musical mental transformations across pitch and time. NeuroImage, 75, 27–35.

13.

Gaser

Schlaug

(2003). Brain structures differ between musicians and non-musicians. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 9240–9245.

14.

Grahn

J. A.

Rowe

J. B.

(2009). Feeling the beat: Premotor and striatal interactions in musicians and non-musicians during beat processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 7540–7548.

15.

Hebb

(1949). The organization of behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.

16.

Herdener

Humbel

Esposito

Habermeyer

Cattapan-Ludewig

Seifritz

(2014). Jazz drummers recruit language-specific areas for the processing of rhythmic structure. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 836–843. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs367.

17.

Hetland

(2000). Learning to make music enhances spatial reasoning. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34, 179–238.

18.

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, 439–450.

19.

Kraus

Chandrasekaran

(2010). Music training for the development of auditory skills. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 599–605.

20.

Park

Polk

T. A.

(2012). Investigating unique environmental contributions to the neural representation of written words: A monozygotic twin study. PLoS One, 7(2), e31512. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031512

21.

Pasquinelli

(2013). Slippery slopes: Some considerations for favoring a good marriage between education and the science of the mind–brain–behavior, and forestalling the risks. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2, 111–121.

22.

Perry

B. D.

(2002). Childhood experience and the expression of genetic potential: What childhood neglect tells us about nature and nurture. Brain and Mind, 3, 79–100.

23.

Rauscher

F. H.

Shaw

G. L.

Levine

L. J.

(1997). Music training causes long-term enhancement of preschool children’s spatial-temporal reasoning. Neurological Research, 19, 2–8.

24.

Rickard

Vasquez

J. T.

Murphy

Gill

Toukhsati

S. R.

(2010). Benefits of a classroom based instrumental music program on verbal memory of primary school children: A longitudinal study. Australian Journal of Music Education, 1, 37–46.

25.

Schlaug

Jancke

Huang

Staiger

Steimmetz

(1995). Increased corpus callosum size in musicians. Neuropsychologia, 33, 1047–1055.

26.

Skoe

Kraus

(2012). A little goes a long way: How the adult brain is shaped by musical training in childhood. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 11507–11510.

27.

Smith

G. E.

Housen

Yaffe

Ruff

Kennison

R. F.

Mahncke

H. W.

Zelinski

E. M.

(2009). A cognitive training program based on principles of brain plasticity: Results from the Improvement in Memory with Plasticity-based Adaptive Cognitive Training (IMPACT) study. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 57, 594–603.

28.

Stipek

MacIver

(1989). Developmental changes in children’s assessment of intellectual competence. Child Development, 60, 521–538.

29.

Tokuhama-Espinosa

(2011). Mind, brain, and education science: A comprehensive guide to the new brain-based teaching. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

30.

Wood

Bruner

Ross

(1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

31.

Zatorre

(2003). Absolute pitch: A model for understanding the influence of genes and development on neural and cognitive function. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 692–695.