The real benefit of learning a musical instrument at a young age
As you can see, this is a rather lengthy post. However, I feel that it offers a certain amount of insight and that it could possibly lead to some interesting discussion. Hopefully I've kept it reasonably engaging throughout. :wink:
By now, the idea that fostering musical ability in young children--for example, by having them take piano lessons or encouraging them to take up the guitar--is ultimately beneficial for their development is becoming part of the 'conventional wisdom.' Particularly in higher socioeconomic status (SES) families we see the trend of parents encouraging (or in some cases mandating) their children to enroll in lessons to learn a musical instrument. Motivations on behalf of the parents vary; it may be based on a simple hunch that they will enjoy it, or the desire for them to be "well-rounded," or a belief that it will expedite their cognitive development. Regardless of the reasoning, we have found something very interesting about these children: it really does appear to be beneficial for them. Compared to controls, they appear to learn to read faster, test somewhat higher on measures of spatial IQ, and generally seem to do better in school.
There have been several theories to account for these observations. Some suggest that the process of learning music aids in the development of focus and concentration. Others say that the spatial aspects of learning music (particularly keyboard) serve as 'exercise' for the visuospatial faculties in the developing brain. Still others suggest that the hand-eye coordination involved encourages transfer of information between the two hemispheres of the brain, leading to lasting changes in information processing. Regardless of the precise mechanism, most seem to agree that the observed effects on academic performance and tests of intelligence are due to enhanced cognitive abilities in the child.
There is likely a degree of truth to these theories. Certainly they sound plausible. But I argue that there is another, far more important benefit of learning a musical instrument at a young age. An effect that reaches beyond the implications of the above theories, while possibly accounting for them as well.
I argue that the most important benefit derives not from the musical training per se. Children are clever; they extrapolate from the case of learning a musical instrument to the much greater domain of learning in general. As young children become adept at playing a musical instrument, they learn something very important about both themselves and the world around them. Essentially, they learn that they have the capacity to improve their skills, abilities, and most importantly, their traits. They learn that their personal characteristics are not set in stone, things that you are simply born with a certain amount of. Rather, they come to understand their traits as malleable entities that can be increased. As it turns out, this is one of the most valuable things that a child can learn; and unfortunately, something that many never learn.
What is the significance of acquiring this belief about oneself? In short, it determines how we set, interpret, and strive for goals in our lives. Let's consider two hypothetical students, Jim and Drew. Jim's implicit theory is that human attributes are something you are born with and simply have more or less of. Drew's implicit theory is that human attributes can be changed with effort.
Let's say that Jim and Drew have both enrolled in a college math course. How are they likely to approach the course? Remember, Jim views mathematical ability as something that everyone has in fixed amounts, so it logically follows (for Jim) that any sort of test--such as this course--primarily serves as an indicator of this underlying ability. Because of this, Jim is likely to interpret the course as a grade to be earned, as a chance to demonstrate his competence to other students, a meter to help him decide whether he has a future in mathematics, etc. In short, Jim frames the course in terms of his performance in the course. Drew, on the other hand, is more likely to interpret the course as a chance to improve his math abilities, learn new study habits, generally become a more well-rounded and informed student, etc. In short, Drew frames the course in terms of what he will take away from it.
As you can imagine, these two frames will have serious implications for their performance in the course. For example, if both students begin to get behind or do poorly in the course, they are likely to react in very different ways. Jim is likely to become discouraged and believe that this is an indicator of his poor mathematical ability. Consequently, he may drop the course and may even choose to avoid math courses from then on. Drew, on the other hand, is likely to view the problem as a sign that he needs to put more effort into the class, reform his study habits, etc. Drew is more likely to persist and therefore ultimately succeed.
Beyond the interpretation of goals, Jim and Drew are likely to set very different goals for themselves. Since Jim believes that he has a certain, stable amount of traits such as intelligence, creativity, etc., he is more likely to set easier goals that are attainable according to his beliefs about what he can personally handle, and to avoid difficult goals as being a waste of time. Drew, however, is more likely to set challenging (and ultimately more rewarding) goals for himself, with the belief that he can rise up to meet the goal--and better himself in the process--if he only puts in the required effort.
As you can imagine, given these differences in the interpretation, pursuit, and setting of goals, Jim and Drew are likely to experience very different levels of success and achievement throughout their lives. And what was the root cause of much of it? Their implicit theories about the nature of traits; which are heavily influenced by their early experiences with achievement and goal-striving.
With regards to teaching children to play a musical instrument, it is my belief that the 'real' benefit lies not in fostering cognitive abilities (or some other borderline mystical mechanism, a la the "Mozart Effect"), but rather in teaching children that they have the capacity to take control of their selves and effect change in their personal outcomes. Importantly, this is something that can be--and often is--learned in an entirely different context from that of learning music, having little to do with the instrument itself. Although I think that learning a musical instrument offers enough attractive fringe benefits that it should be considered a valuable and worthwhile endeavor regardless.
If you've made it to this point, give yourself a well-deserved pat on the back :D. I would very much like to hear your thoughts and opinions on the matter, as well as personal experiences.
