Music learning and school-aged children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing: A scoping review

Abstract

There is compelling evidence that music can support young people’s wellbeing, particularly through music listening to and making. In this article we report a systematic review of music learning and wellbeing literature to offer a new perspective on learning music as a wellbeing strategy. In this review, we investigated (a) what definitions and theories of wellbeing have been used; (b) what methodologies have been employed, particularly measurement tools; (c) what learning contexts and participant demographics have been examined; and (d) what is known about music learning and the wellbeing of school-aged children and adolescents. This review was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and a protocol was registered. Four hundred and twenty-three sources were retrieved from nine databases, and 30 sources were analyzed after screening. Findings identified that most sources did not adopt a clear definition or theory of wellbeing. Qualitative methods overwhelmingly inform existing knowledge and studies were predominantly situated in Australia and the United Kingdom. All but one source reported that music learning supported wellbeing. Wellbeing outcomes were summarized into three themes (individual, social, and educational) and characteristics of these music programs and approaches were also identified. The review concludes with clear recommendations to direct future research. These include a need for music education scholars to adopt an interdisciplinary approach informed by existing wellbeing knowledge. The field would benefit from developing a quantitative instrument to measure music learning and wellbeing outcomes for use in large-scale studies, including in schools. Future research must closely interrogate the wellbeing outcomes and characteristics of specific music learning activities, how learning music can be a form of wellbeing literacy, and how wellbeing strategies can be integrated into music education.

Music can play a crucial role in supporting the wellbeing of children and adolescents. From listening to active participation, young people worldwide use music as an activity and resource for wellbeing (McFerran et al., 2019; Papinczak et al., 2015; Stepanović Ilić, 2024; ter Bogt et al., 2017). Although extensive literature exists on how listening to music—and, more recently, making music (Stepanović Ilić, 2024)—can enhance life outcomes for youth, little attention has been paid to how learning music can support children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing. In this review, we position music learning as a distinctive wellbeing strategy to amplify the life-enhancing benefits of music. Given the importance of music in teenagers’ everyday lives (Laiho, 2004; Lonsdale & North, 2011; Miranda, 2013; Saarikallio et al., 2020) and the widespread delivery of music education in schools and communities globally, there is a need to more deeply understand how learning music can be harnessed to support youth to flourish in highly engaging and nonmedical ways. This PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) uses a systematic approach to map existing literature and direct future research on music learning in schools and the community and the wellbeing of school-aged children and adolescents.

Rationale

Wellbeing and education

There has been growing concern for young people’s wellbeing in recent years. This increase has been propelled by several issues, including a global mental health crisis (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2022; World Health Organization [WHO], 2022) and the shortcomings of neoliberal educational agendas (Tamir, 2022). Schools and other educational settings have been identified as consequential in supporting student wellbeing individually and systemically (Cefai et al., 2021; Govorova et al., 2020). In response, scholars and policymakers are now calling for an alternative view where human flourishing is the overarching aim of all educational endeavors (Chatterjee Singh & Duraiappah, 2020; Duraiappah et al., 2022; Kristjánsson, 2020; Stevenson, 2022). Goopy (2024) has advocated that a contemporary vision of music education is “musical flourishing,” which aims to promote joyful, meaningful, and ethical ways of living well in, through, with, and including music.

There are various theoretical perspectives on wellbeing, and the education field has yet to reach consensus on which is most applicable (Curren et al., 2024). Broadly speaking, there are two prevailing philosophical views of wellbeing. A “hedonic” perspective equates the idea of wellbeing with happiness (Kahneman et al., 2006) and is the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect (Kahneman et al., 1999). Combined with an evaluation of life satisfaction, this view is described as “subjective wellbeing” (Diener, 2000). Alternatively, a “eudaimonic” perspective of wellbeing is one where a life that develops and expresses an individual’s potential in good and admirable ways leads to subjective happiness, pleasure, and satisfaction. Aristotle characterized this view as eudaimonia and a fundamental human goal; “flourishing” is a common translation of this view (Ryan et al., 2013). Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) along with the positive psychology PERMA wellbeing model (Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment; Seligman, 2011) are two prominent psychological theories aligned with this eudaimonic conception of wellbeing. This review does not seek to prioritize any one perspective but aims to gain a deeper understanding of how wellbeing has been investigated in music education to guide future research.

Music and children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing

Research has surged in recent years on how music can enhance health and wellbeing throughout the life course. A review of the literature by Dingle et al (2021) categorizes types of musical activities that result in wellbeing outcomes. Categories include receptive and intentional music listening, sharing music, instrument learning and playing, group singing, music movement and dance, lyric-focused activities, and composition. Generalizing the broad range of wellbeing findings is challenging; however, research within each category found evidence of musical engagement providing psychosocial benefits, indicating the need for further, more targeted research (Dingle et al., 2021; Kreutz & von Ossietzky, 2015)

Although research has focused largely on adult populations, emerging literature on music and its influence on children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing is advancing our understanding of music’s impact on their social, emotional, and mental health (McFerran et al., 2019). For example, studies have found that group singing offers developmental and behavioral benefits (Welch et al., 2011), supports wellbeing through experiences of social connectedness and confidence (Glew et al., 2021), provides emotional regulation and improved self-esteem (Uhlig et al., 2018), and positively affects subjective wellbeing (Davies et al., 2023).

The role of music listening on young people’s emotions has gained much attention and has been found to affect wellbeing factors, such as psychosocial development (Miranda, 2013), mood regulation (Saarikallio, 2008), building relationships, modifying emotions and cognition, and emotional immersion (Papinczak et al., 2015), consolation (ter Bogt et al., 2017), and protection (Stepanović Ilić, 2024). Purposeful use of music can elevate wellbeing, relieve mental distress, and promote positive mental health (Chin & Rickard, 2014). It is also increasingly recognized that engagement with music can harm a person (MacGregor, 2023), and individual and contextual factors are important when considering the emotional effect of music on a person’s wellbeing (McFerran, 2016).

Music learning and wellbeing

Music education is increasingly recognized for its potential to support wellbeing (Goopy, 2025; Mantie, 2022; NAMM Foundation and Grunwald Associates LLC, 2015; Smith et al., 2021) in addition to being valued as a discipline and art form (Mark, 2020). Although significant attention has been devoted to investigating wellbeing and music listening, making, and participation, this is the first review known to focus on music learning and school-aged children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing. For the purposes of this review, “music learning” is defined as any activity or behavior that involves learning and developing music knowledge, skills, and understanding as a central goal. Music activities where the main aim was not educational, such as for therapeutic or participation purposes, were not part of this review.

It is acknowledged that music learning occurs in a range of settings, including schools, juvenile detention centres, studios, ensembles, charities, and community organizations. Indeed, many community-based music organizations have effectively provided progressive programs operating beyond the confines of school structures and are leaders in innovative practices (Bartleet & Higgins, 2018). There is also an opportunity for music education to learn from music therapy, interventions, and community-based programs that, at times, also have educational goals (Clough & Tarr, 2021; Marcos Treceño & Arias Gago, 2023; Rickson & McFerran, 2014). As such, the context of music learning was not a variable that defined the selection of literature and all contexts are included in this review. In many settings, children, adolescents, and young adults learn music alongside each other, and we use the term “young people” to refer to all three age groups broadly. We define school-aged children as 5 to 12 years old, school-aged adolescents as 13 to 18 years old, and young adults as 19 to 25 years old. Although the focus of this review is school-aged children and adolescents, it is acknowledged that some studies also included young adults in their student samples.

Objectives

The purpose of this scoping review was to map the state of the literature on music learning and the wellbeing of school-aged children and adolescents and identify areas needed for future research. To meet this aim, the following research questions were developed that guided this study:

1. What wellbeing definitions and theories have been used by researchers?

2. What methodologies have been employed, including measurement tools?

3. What learning contexts and participant demographics have been investigated?

4. What is known from the literature about music learning and school-aged children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing?

Method

Research strategy

This review followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). The Research Questions, inclusion criteria, and methods for this scoping review were documented in a protocol registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (Goopy & MacArthur, 2023).

The research strategy was devised in consultation with the university library research services. Each database was searched using the following search string: “music education” OR “music teach*” OR “music learn*” OR “music program*” OR “music instruct*” OR “music pedagog*” AND “wellbeing” OR “well-being” OR “well being” OR “mental health” OR “mental*” AND “child*” OR “adolescen*” OR “youth” OR “young people” OR “teen*.” We included original and secondary empirical peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and books published in English with no beginning date specified. Reviews, conference papers, theses, newspaper articles, websites, blogs, and research not translated into English were excluded. Although studies were restricted to school-aged children and adolescents, there was no restriction on learning context.

Databases were selected to cover the interdisciplinary nature of the study across music, education, and psychology. Searches were conducted using the following databases on 8 August 2023: EBSCO (all databases), Emerald, Informit, ProQuest, Sage, Scopus, Taylor & Francis, Web of Science, and Wiley. All searches searched the abstract, whereas Scopus also allowed titles and keywords, and Web of Science allowed topic (title, abstract, author keywords, and Keywords Plus). Search results were exported to an RIS file and imported into a dedicated shared online library in Zotero.

Source selection

Four hundred and twenty-three sources of evidence were retrieved from the searched databases. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flow diagram and provides an overview of the records identified, screened, and included in this review (Page et al., 2021). One hundred and eighty-three duplicate records were removed before screening. The remaining 240 sources of evidence were screened in three stages. In the first stage, both authors screened all titles and abstracts of the sources together against the objectives of the study and eligibility criteria. In the second stage, the second author screened full texts against the following five exclusion criteria (most recently published excluded sources are provided in brackets): (a) findings not focused on wellbeing or superficial mention of wellbeing (Holster, 2023; Olivier et al., 2022; Simunovic et al., 2022); (b) context not focused on music learning (Cheong-Clinch, 2009; Metić & Svalina, 2020; Sun, 2020); (c) learning population not focused on school-age children and/or adolescents (Barrett & Welch, 2021; Tettey, 2019; Wang, 2022); (d) not reporting original or secondary empirical research (Bucura, 2022; Hutton, 2022; Varner, 2022); and (e) not written in English (Krupp-Schleußner, 2016). One hundred and sixty-three records were excluded, and 75 full-text PDF files were retrieved (two were unavailable). The first author consulted on sources marked for exclusion. As both authors worked together on the data charting, a third screening occurred where sources that may have initially appeared to meet the inclusion criteria were later excluded. Through this process, a further 50 records were excluded, and a final 25 sources of evidence were included in the review.

Figure 1.

Music Learning and Children’s and Young People’s Wellbeing Source Flow Diagram.

A manual search using Google Scholar was also conducted. Search strings included: “music learning wellbeing/well-being” and “music education wellbeing/well-being.” Results were screened, and relevant citations of studies were pursued. After the manual search, five additional sources were added to the collection (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023; Clennon & Boehm, 2014; Crooke & McFerran, 2014; Harkins et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2017).

Data extraction and synthesis

The data-charting form was developed by the first author based on the study by Pollock et al. (2023) and in consultation with the second author. Data were extracted by the two authors simultaneously regarding the study aim, data source, learning context (context, type and duration, city/town/region, country, age, population group), participants (number, age, population group), methodology (methods, analysis method, inductive/deductive), and wellbeing (measurement instrument, theory, definition, framework, findings). Provides an overview of the data-charting form. The first author led the synthesis of the results, which was supported by the second author. The synthesized data results are reported with accompanying narrative descriptions.

Results

RQ1. What wellbeing definitions and theories have been used by researchers?

Twenty-six sources (86.6%) did not include any definition of wellbeing as it applied to the studies reported. The four sources that did include wellbeing definitions (Burnard & Dragovic, 2015; Clennon & Boehm, 2014; Hinshaw et al., 2015; Robb et al., 2023) each used different definitions (see Supplemental material Table 1; Awartani et al., 2008, p. 54; Courtwright et al., 2020, p. 108; Swindells et al., 2013, p. 321; WHO, 2011, p. 1), which were all broadly similar in describing an overall positive state of mind leading to self-actualization.

Similarly, 21 sources (70%) did not adopt any theoretical wellbeing perspective. Of those that did, two studies adopted the PERMA model (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023; Lee et al., 2017), and another source broadly adopted eudaimonic wellbeing (Clennon & Boehm, 2014). Osborne et al. (2016) used Clowning Around (Pathways to Prevention Research Group, 2012), and Harkins et al. (2016) explicitly used a grounded theory approach without a predetermined theory. Four studies applied the labels of psychological wellbeing (Crooke et al., 2016; Hinshaw et al., 2015) and socio-emotional wellbeing (Rose et al., 2019; van der Weijden et al., 2023) without explicit reference to specific theories or scholars.

Seventeen sources did, however, use a concept or conceptual framework positioned to be related to wellbeing. For example, Levstek et al. (2021) used a model of psychological mechanisms of inclusive music-making (Levstek & Banerjee, 2021) informed by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and the Access–Awareness–Agency model (Saarikallio, 2019). Concepts such as self-efficacy (Ritchie & Williamon, 2011), mindfulness (Auerbach & Delport, 2018), musical play (Marsh, 2017), meaning and value of music participation (Barrett & Zhukov, 2022), and quality of life (van der Weijden et al., 2023) were also adopted by authors to report findings related to wellbeing. In most cases, though, these concepts’ explicit relationships and contributions to wellbeing were not articulated.

RQ2. What methodologies have been employed, including measurement tools?

Half (15, 50%) of the sources in this review were solely qualitative studies with 24 (80%) using at least some sort of qualitative data collection tool. Nine (30%) were mixed-methods, four (13.3%) were quantitative, and two (6.6%) were secondary empirical articles analyzing previously published data. Most studies used multiple data collection methods, including participant interviews (20, 66.6%), questionaries (11, 36.6%), observations (11, 36.6%), and focus groups (7, 23.3%). Other methods included drawing activities (Harkins et al., 2016; Merati et al., 2019), surveys (Crooke & McFerran, 2014; Levstek et al., 2021), session recordings (Baker et al., 2018), audiovisual assessments (Osborne et al., 2016), participatory filming (Harkins et al., 2016), music artifacts (Baker et al., 2018), reflective journals (Burnard & Dragovic, 2015), student information, teacher planning and assessment (Crawford, 2020), and attendance data (Harkins et al., 2016).

Eighteen sources (60%) did not use a quantitative instrument for measuring wellbeing. Of the 12 studies that used specific questionnaires to measure wellbeing, the most used and adapted (4, 13.33%) was the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (Tennant et al., 2007). Ritchie and Williamon (2011) used the short version of the questionnaire, and Daykin et al. (2017) used the original long version of the questionnaire, though results were not reported because of unreliability due to challenges faced collecting data in youth justice settings. Two studies (Caulfield et al., 2022; Caulfield & Sojka, 2023) adapted the original long questionnaire to create what they called the Youth Music Wellbeing Scale; however, it is noted that this scale does not ask any questions about music and learning music. Other instruments used to measure wellbeing in single sources were an adapted Self-Efficacy for Music Learning questionnaire (Ritchie & Williamon, 2010); the General Health Questionnaire 12 (Goldberg et al., 1997); the Behavior Assessment System for Children, second edition (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004); Clowning Around (Pathways to Prevention Research Group, 2012); the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (Robinson et al., 1996); scales from the Victorian Adolescent Health and Wellbeing Survey (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2011) and Communities That Care Youth Survey (Arthur et al., 2002; Bond et al., 2000); Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale (Carter & Liddle, 2011); and self-designed scales. Although two sources reported findings using the PERMA model (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023; Lee et al., 2017), data were not collected using the PERMA profiler but instead took a deductive approach and applied the theory to collected data. Due to the range and different reporting methods of quantitative instruments, comparison of quantitative data was not possible.

RQ3. What learning contexts and participant demographics have been investigated?

Studies in this review were predominantly situated in Australia (13, 43.3%) and the United Kingdom (11, 36.6%). Two studies were conducted in Canada (6.6%), and one multi-national study was conducted in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States (3.3%). One study was conducted in China, Peru, and South Africa.

Every study reported in the selected literature investigated a unique learning context offering a bespoke form of music education. Only seven sources (23.3%) were situated in regular and ongoing school music programs, and all other studies except one (Ritchie & Williamon, 2011) were part of community programs, including those operating in schools. Of note were four (13.3%) in El Sistema-inspired programs and three (10%) in youth justice settings. Music contexts included ongoing instrumental lessons, choirs, ensemble rehearsals, songwriting sessions, song and dance programs, interventions, and camps. Children’s prior music learning and experiences were examined as part of one study (Ritchie & Williamon, 2011).

The studies included a range of participant demographics, with some comprising multiple participant groups. Eight sources (26.6%) recruited student participants exclusively from primary and secondary schools, one (3.3%) recruited school students with members of community music programs, and one (3.3%) with the general population. Most studies targeted specific population groups in community settings, including young people who faced disadvantage (6, 20%), had a refugee or migrant background (4, 13.3%), suffered from substance abuse, disengagement from learning, loss, and unstable family life (3, 10%), were in contact with the criminal justice system (3, 10%), had high levels of musical expertise (2, 6.6%), were Indigenous young people (2, 6.6%), and had learning needs or disabilities (2, 6.6%).

All but six studies (20%) had fewer than 100 participants. Despite a focus on school-aged students, studies included participants aged from 6 (Barrett & Smigiel, 2007) to 24 (Barrett & Zhukov, 2022). Most studies were conducted with participants aged 10 to 19 years old learning together, with some studies in community settings having children and young adults learning alongside each other (Barrett & Zhukov, 2022). Studies did not mix early childhood participants with primary school participants. The sources by Morell and Shoemark (2018) and Anthony et al. (2018) were the only two studies that did not include the perspectives of children and young people, perhaps due to the nature of the learning context. It is also noted that adults provided perspectives on children and adolescents’ wellbeing. These adults were primarily in positions of responsibility, such as parents, carers, teachers, and facilitators.

RQ4. What is known from the literature about music learning and school-aged children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing?

Wellbeing outcomes

Overall, there were generally positive results regarding learning music and wellbeing. All sources except one (Rose et al., 2019) reported that learning music benefited student wellbeing. One study went as far as describing virtual group music-making as a “lockdown musical lifeline” (Levstek et al., 2021, p. 9) during the COVID-19 pandemic and described the learning context as a “music asylum” (DeNora, 2014). Conversely, Rose et al. (2019) found learning a musical instrument in a range of schools in the United Kingdom did not have a significant positive or negative impact on children’s wellbeing. Two studies reported mixed results. Hinshaw et al. (2015) found that quantitative data showed no significant increase in psychological wellbeing, whereas qualitative data suggested a range of beneficial outcomes. Group singing appeared to be a positive experience for children, though the impact was only subtle for children with preexisting high levels of psychological wellbeing. Osborne et al. (2016) reported no significant difference in wellbeing in one school because of instrumental learning, but a significant difference in another. No study reported any negative impact on wellbeing. Some sources advocated that wellbeing outcomes are contextual (Daykin et al., 2017; Osborne et al., 2016) and particularly affected by the length of engagement and the “richness” of the music program (Osborne et al., 2016). Morell and Shoemark (2018) found that practitioners tailored the descriptions and values of their programs to the different audiences in their ecological environment. Although acknowledging the variables of the studies reviewed (such as learning contexts, population groups, research methods, and wellbeing definitions and frameworks), in what followed, we synthesize the outcomes of learning music on school-aged children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing into three themes: individual, social, and educational. Findings are reported relying on the terminology used by authors.

Individual outcomes. The most common wellbeing outcome reported for individuals was improved confidence (Baker et al., 2018; Barrett & Zhukov, 2022; Clennon & Boehm, 2014; Harkins et al., 2016; Merati et al., 2019; van der Weijden et al., 2023), self-esteem (Clennon & Boehm, 2014; Harkins et al., 2016; Osborne et al., 2016), and self-efficacy (Ritchie & Williamon, 2011). Children and adolescents had improved personal fulfillment (Barrett & Smigiel, 2007), purpose in life (Osborne et al., 2016), satisfaction (van der Weijden et al., 2023), and pride in themselves (Baker et al., 2018; Harkins et al., 2016). A range of emotional benefits to individuals from learning music were found, such as emotional awareness (Clennon & Boehm, 2014), increased calmness (Caulfield et al., 2022; Caulfield & Sojka, 2023), and improved mindfulness (Auerbach & Delport, 2018). Program participants reported being more positive and optimistic (Caulfield et al., 2022; Caulfield & Sojka, 2023), happier (Good et al., 2021; Harkins et al., 2016; Osborne et al., 2016), and experiencing improved enjoyment (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023; Harkins et al., 2016) as well as increased humor (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023). There were other benefits reported, including patience (Merati et al., 2019), coping with stress (Merati et al., 2019), and anger management (Clennon & Boehm, 2014). Studies also reported benefits to increased awareness of self-and-others (Auerbach & Delport, 2018); valuing professional opportunity (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023); personal development (McFerran & Higgins, 2021); improved independence, motivation, persistence, and leadership skills (Barrett & Zhukov, 2022); security (Harkins et al., 2016); and autonomy (Barrett & Zhukov, 2022; Levstek et al., 2021).

Social outcomes. A range of social benefits from learning music linked to children and adolescents’ wellbeing were reported. The most mentioned were an improved sense of belonging (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023; Crawford, 2017, 2020; Harkins et al., 2016; Osborne et al., 2016), of being connected (Baker et al., 2018; McFerran & Higgins, 2021), and of strengthened relationships, including between adult facilitators or teachers and learner (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023; Harkins et al., 2016; Merati et al., 2019). Improvements were found in social skills (Barrett & Zhukov, 2022), acceptance (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023), getting along with others (Osborne et al., 2016), and friendships (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023).

Educational outcomes. Sources reported that children’s and adolescents’ learning benefited because of improved wellbeing. Learning music increased students’ motivation to learn and achieve (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023; Merati et al., 2019; Osborne et al., 2016), their learning engagement (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023; Crawford, 2017, 2020), and their sense of accomplishment (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023). These music learning programs also assisted participants with future music plans (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023) and shaped career ambitions (Merati et al., 2019).

Characteristics of programs and approaches

The emerging characteristics of music-learning programs and approaches that supported children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing were identified. These findings have been summarized into a list of 10 characteristics of music-learning programs that promote the wellbeing of children and adolescents.

1. Shared (Anthony et al., 2018; Crooke & McFerran, 2014) and active music-making (Auerbach & Delport, 2018; Burnard & Dragovic, 2015; Marsh, 2017; Wills, 2011; Yan & Foong, 2022) rituals (Baker et al., 2018).

2. Creating a musical product (Crooke & McFerran, 2014).

3. Focused listening (Auerbach & Delport, 2018).

4. Artistic excellence (Baker et al., 2018; Barrett & Zhukov, 2022; Barrett & Zhukov, 2023).

5. Learning musical and nonmusical skills (Barrett & Zhukov, 2022) tailor-made to participant needs (Crooke & McFerran, 2014; Lee et al., 2017) and prioritizing wellbeing strategies (Crooke & McFerran, 2014; McFerran & Higgins, 2021).

6. Participant empowerment (Anthony et al., 2018; Burnard & Dragovic, 2015), including participant-led (Levstek et al., 2021) and shared decision-making (Burnard & Dragovic, 2015).

7. Direct and honest feedback (Baker et al., 2018) and praise (Baker et al., 2018; Burnard & Dragovic, 2015).

8. Centered on building positive relationships (Anthony et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Robb et al., 2023).

9. A safe and secure learning environment (Baker et al., 2018; Robb et al., 2023).

10. Fun and challenging activities (Baker et al., 2018).

Discussion

Wellbeing definitions and theories

Currently, there is no shared understanding of wellbeing in international music education research, with a number of publications assuming understanding of the term. The field has yet to consistently adopt clear wellbeing definitions and theories when investigating music learning and wellbeing. Many sources in the initial screening were excluded because they mentioned wellbeing in passing, but it was not specifically part of the study aim, theoretical framework, or detailed in the findings. Authors also used “wellbeing” in some sources to correlate with a reported positive outcome, such as happiness, mindfulness, or resilience. This was particularly the case in studies that adopted an inductive approach to their analysis. These approaches may have led authors to make claims about music learning and wellbeing that are not yet substantiated or framed by existing wellbeing knowledge. Furthermore, different geographical regions may use different terminology when referring to wellbeing outcomes.

Future music education scholars need to adopt an interdisciplinary approach and engage with wellbeing knowledge in the education and psychology fields. Music education research is compromised when imprecise references to wellbeing are made, and it is difficult to convincingly advance existing knowledge when lacking appropriate theoretical frameworks. Similar observations on the use of wellbeing in music and music education research have been previously reported by scholars (McArton & Mantie, 2023), including those in this review (Barrett & Zhukov, 2023; Burnard & Dragovic, 2015; Lee et al., 2017; Robb et al., 2023). Two prominent psychological wellbeing theories, self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and flourishing (Seligman, 2011) are worthy of consideration in this context. Although a grounded theory approach such as that adopted by Harkins et al. (2016) is valid, it does not offer the opportunity to compare results across a field in its early stages of development.

Research methods

Qualitative methods overwhelmingly shape existing knowledge on music learning and wellbeing. Qualitative methods are highly suitable for the unique contexts investigated in this review as they reveal the complexities of individual learning settings and population groups (Crooke & McFerran, 2014; Harkins et al., 2016). Clennon and Boehm (2014) concur and argue that questionnaires can be off-putting to vulnerable participants, and experimental research designs can be impractical with participants who have irregular attendance, such as in youth justice settings. Qualitative methods must continue to hold an essential role in future research investigating music learning and wellbeing.

Quantitative measurement tools are significantly underutilized but show promise in measuring the impact of music learning on children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing across the general population. Thirteen (43.33%) sources used quantitative measurement tools, and only a few used an experimental design to measure impact (i.e., pretesting and posttesting). Of particular interest are the studies that recorded mixed results. For example, Hinshaw et al. (2015) found no impact of group singing on psychological wellbeing using quantitative tools, whereas they did when using qualitative methods. The study by Osborne et al. (2016) also had mixed results, with School 1 students learning an instrument experiencing statistically significant enhanced wellbeing, and with School 2 students experiencing no significant difference. These findings underscore the need for broader implementation of consistent wellbeing measurement tools with the general population to allow for comparable results.

This review reveals the need for scholars to adopt robust research methods explicitly designed to measure wellbeing outcomes for children and adolescents learning music. We recommend that future research methods investigating music learning and wellbeing align with the adopted theory, the aims of the study, and the specific context and participants, including age-appropriate language. Furthermore, we argue that there is a need to develop a robust scale specifically designed for music learning and the wellbeing of children and adolescents that can measure short- and long-term intervention. Although generic psychological measurement tools provide valuable opportunities to compare wellbeing outcomes to other disciplines, we propose that there would also be great value in a specific measurement tool that can interrogate the specialized nature of learning music more closely. Careful consideration of how the proposed measurement tool is used with some population groups will be needed as difficulties in the reliability of questionnaires have been previously reported in programs with irregular participant attendance (Daykin et al., 2017).

Mixed-method designs combining standardized quantitative measurement tools with qualitative data collection methods can provide a balanced data collection approach, leading to greater confidence for findings to be credible, comparable, and scalable. Including both child and adolescent self-reporting and adult-reporting can prove valuable in triangulating data. Similar recommendations and calls for a consensus and consistency in music education research design have been made earlier (Caulfield et al., 2022; Crooke & McFerran, 2014).

Programs and participants

All sources in this review were case studies; only one dealt with the broader general population (Ritchie & Williamon, 2011). Cases were typically bound by the learning program and population group. Several programs worked with vulnerable population groups. Although some of these settings were similar, such as four El Sistema-inspired programs and three youth justice settings, they were still all unique learning programs. The cases not only highlight the range of settings where learning music occurs and the interest they generate, but also present challenges when trying to generalize findings across the field of music education.

Studies were largely set in Australia (43.3%) and the United Kingdom (36.6%), with a notable absence of North American-based programs and non-Western settings, although this may be attributed to searches being restricted to sources in English only. Many educational institutions and organizations worldwide aim to assist children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing through music education, and these are yet to be examined and represented in the literature.

It is a significant observation that no widespread national or international studies have been conducted regarding music education and children and adolescents’ wellbeing. Currently, the broad implementation of music education in schools provides the opportunity to investigate large populations with regard to children’s wellbeing in music learning and amass important findings that can be applicable on a global scale. The paradox of the wellbeing benefits afforded by music learning and the worldwide threat to resourcing music education underscores a greater urgency for such research.

Wellbeing outcomes

All but one study found that music positively supported the wellbeing of children and adolescents, and no study reported adverse outcomes. Low socio-economic and vulnerable populations were generally found to experience a high level of benefit. However, Ritchie and Williamon (2011) found no difference in socio-economic status when investigating self-efficacy beliefs for learning music. Given the precarious provision of music education internationally and, at times, its positioning as an opt-in paid extra, such benefits reinforce the need for continued efforts toward addressing access and inclusion in music education.

Numerous authors (Daykin et al., 2017; Morell & Shoemark, 2018) noted that learning programs are framed differently and, therefore, have unique contributions informed by contextual factors. Osborne et al. (2016) went a step further and suggested that the length of student engagement and the “richness” (e.g., value and profile in school and broader community, external partnerships, and program longevity) of the program also contribute to the significance of wellbeing benefits. The reviewed research indicated a correlation between wellbeing benefits and music-teaching practices. This finding stresses the need to understand further what specific music-teaching and -learning factors lend themselves to supporting specific wellbeing outcomes. Such evidence-based findings could provide valuable wellbeing strategies that music educators could more deliberately embed in their teaching and programs.

Furthermore, findings from this review suggest that although music is a common interest among young people in these studies, nonmusical aspects of programs also support participant wellbeing. Reaffirming the work of McFerran and Higgins (2021), it is not only music that makes a difference, but music alongside other supportive measures. We suggest music draws like-minded young people together and facilitates the opportunity for learning wellbeing strategies in a personally engaging setting. We further propose that if music educators are serious about achieving positive wellbeing outcomes, music programs and curricula require specific wellbeing learning goals.

Education research more broadly has observed the relationship between teacher and student wellbeing, and there is a need to understand the relationship between music teacher-facilitator and learner wellbeing (Carroll et al., 2021). Understanding this interaction is particularly important given emerging evidence that music teachers are at a higher risk of burnout (Gilbert, 2021). Recent research in wellbeing has also proposed a shift from individual wellbeing to collective wellbeing (Cefai et al., 2021), and further research is needed to understand how music education can benefit the entire school and broader community. Finally, there is generally an assumption that learning music is positive, perhaps motivated by continuous advocacy efforts. However, recent research has drawn attention to the potential psychological harm that can be caused by music education (MacGregor, 2023), and the field requires a more critical approach to examining wellbeing.

Program funding and advocacy

Some sources reported being commissioned for the purposes of advocacy and serving as evidence of program benefits to support funding. It is recognized that music education programs, particularly community music organizations, have a need to articulate the key aspects of their programs to establish and maintain funding (Morell & Shoemark, 2018). This need, however, creates an implicit bias in the reporting of commissioned studies and has the potential to compromise critical and robust research. Such a call for a more critical approach has been called for in the broader Arts on Prescription movement (Bungay et al., 2023). We recommend caution in future research that is value-laden and suggest more transparent disclosure of funding.

Limitations

Although acknowledging the benefits of such a scientific review driven by procedure, it is limited by a methodology that relies on consistent terminology across the field. Despite our best efforts and including a manual search, sources may have been inadvertently missed. The complexity in the variety of terms used to describe music learning, its contexts, and participant demographics presented challenges. The various ways that wellbeing is conceived also presented challenges and will no doubt continue to be debated in the academy. Finally, sources that were not explicitly focused on music learning were excluded; however, it is acknowledged that all musical activities, such as music-making and listening, are likely to include at least an element of informal music learning.

Conclusion

The potential of music education to amplify the life-enhancing benefits of music, particularly in school settings, is yet to be realized. This scoping review provides a systematic approach for examining a novel perspective where music learning can be a wellbeing strategy, and the findings offer a clear direction for advancing future research. An interdisciplinary approach framed by recognized wellbeing knowledge, including definitions and theories, is needed. Large-scale studies, particularly in schools, are absent and will require the development of data collection tools specifically for measuring the impact of learning music on the wellbeing of individuals and communities, including in specific contexts and population groups. The identified characteristics of programs and approaches should inform the development of future music education aiming to support student wellbeing. A more focused examination of the wellbeing outcomes of specific music-learning activities and how music learning inherently facilitates learning wellbeing strategies is required. Such investigations will advance our understanding of how music learning can be a form of wellbeing literacy, and how wellbeing literacy strategies can be integrated into music learning. Further understanding is required of how music teacher-facilitators can be upskilled and supported in wellbeing strategies for learners, and the interaction between teacher-facilitator and learner wellbeing in music education settings. The disclosure and scrutiny of advocacy and funding agendas in future research will assist as a genuine attempt to conduct critical investigations and minimize bias. Scholars who heed these recommendations will make valuable and much-needed contributions to music and wellbeing research. These directions for research are timely, given the global need to better support children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing and musical flourishing.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-rsm-10.1177_1321103X251323562 – Supplemental material for Music learning and school-aged children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-rsm-10.1177_1321103X251323562 for Music learning and school-aged children’s and adolescents’ wellbeing: A scoping review by Jason Goopy and Stephanie L R MacArthur in Research Studies in Music Education