Music Improve Language Skills in Kids, Argues

¶ … Music Improve Language Skills in Kids," argues that children exposed to music throughout their development have an increased ability to learn language. The premise is that because learning language uses certain regions and requires a multi-sensory process (es), i.e. reading, watching others, listening, etc., those children who have been exposed to music, an activity that uses those same brain regions that are involved in language apprehension and requires a similar multi-sensory process (es), will have a greater capacity to learn language. In short, being exposed to music helps a child learn language.

Explain one research finding described in this article.

The article mentions a study whereby patients wore electrodes on their scalp that measured brain wave activity while the patients listened to a cellist perform and a person speak. The study was comprised of non- musicians and musicians. The test showed that musicians had greater responses in their brains to both music and speech than the non-musicians. Moreover, the study indicated that the more experienced the musician was, the more brain activity he/she exhibited. The question one has with this study is, is a more active brain a more literate brain? One might argue that it is, but further tests are needed to support this theory.

What is your opinion on this article? Do you agree or disagree with the conclusions of the article?

I agree with the article in theory. It sounds plausible. However, there are certain ambiguities that the article needs to clarify and/or address. For starters, how does brain activity really correlate to test scores and language apprehension? If one has a more active brain does that indicate he/she has a higher acumen for language development? Additionally, does watching Sesame Street have the same impact as learning how to play an instrument? The article presupposes it does, or intimates that listening to Sesame Street is somewhat similar to actually learning music the way a musician does, "Research clearly supports the work Sesame Street has being [sic] doing for decades, teaching children language through song and music."

And what are the reasons behind your opinion? Do you have anything you'd like to add to the article?

Well, the article -- as a piece of solemn journalism and/or research-oriented rhetoric is tenuous at best. It jumps to conclusions and neglects to explicate certain critical elements to make for a coherent and cogently written article. The problem with articles like this one is they start with an idea that is grounded in a reason, one that the reader is inclined to believe, and then fail to aptly justify their claim with empirical evidence (Meyers, 2010 p. 163). This article would benefit from a more robust and thorough examination of the facts and findings in the study. Information that addresses the explicit connection between brain activity and text scores (and/or some other metric to evaluate language apprehension) on language aptitude tests. A detailed investigation as to how learning how to play an instrument is related to language apprehension and development. And then, as mentioned, how language cognition is impacted by watching media (Such as Sesame Street) that has musical content vs. physically learning how to play an instrument. Lastly, an article that doesn't illuminate the uncertainties along with what is known is cause for suspect. Or as Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel stated in their book, The Elements of Journalism, "How can the press purport to monitor the powerful if it does not illustrate successes as well as failures?" (2007, p. 144). A thoroughly developed article, typically discusses both sides of the argument, making for a more comprehensive and informative read. These issues, among others, need to be addressed in order for this article to be considered useful.