762262

research-article2018
UPDXXX10.1177/8755123318762262Update: Applications of Research in Music EducationForrester

Reviews of Literature
Update

Transfer of Learning and Music

2018, Vol. 37(1) 30­–35
© 2018 National Association for
Music Education
Understanding: A Review of Literature Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/8755123318762262
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123318762262
update.sagepub.com

Sommer H. Forrester1

Implications
•• Teaching for transfer of learning is dependent on the conditions for learning that are established by the
teacher.
•• Fostering transfer of learning in music involves providing opportunities for students to engage in critical
thinking and reflective learning as performers, listeners, and creators, through goal-orientated instruction.
•• In order for transfer to occur, deliberate and systematic instructional strategies are required. Music educa-
tors might, therefore, consider instructional approaches that model transfer of learning, including taking a
known concept and applying it to another context, providing ample opportunities for students to engage in
systematic reflection and application of knowledge to a new context, and creating opportunities for stu-
dents to solve music problems in small and large groups.

Abstract
Transfer of learning is considered to be a fundamental goal of education, yet it is often assumed or left to chance on
the part of the learner. This paradox points to the renewed investment in creating purposeful learning opportunities
for students and preparing teachers who are equipped to translate their knowledge, skills, and dispositions into
meaningful interactions with students that promote transfer. The purpose of this literature review is to examine the
development of transfer of learning over the past 40 years and consider the implications for music education practices.
A theoretical overview of transfer of learning is provided, along with a summary of curricular frameworks that are
centered around transfer of learning, and a review of select studies from the music education literature that pertain
to transfer of learning. The final section offers recommendations for practice and future research.

Keywords
music teacher education, psychology of teaching and learning, teacher knowledge, teaching and learning, transfer of
learning

For over a century, scholars, educators, and cognitive sci-
entists have examined the notion of transfer of learning
(Blythe, 1998; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000;
Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; DeCorte, 2003; Duke,
2005; Perkins & Salomon, 1992). Learning and cognition
are the fundamental building blocks to developing autono-
mous learners who are able to apply their knowledge to
new and different contexts throughout their lives (Brown
et al., 1989). Transfer of learning has been considered by
many to be a fundamental goal of education and an impor-
tant aspect of developing music understanding; however,
it is often assumed or left to chance on the part of the
learner (Duke, 2005; Duke & Pierce, 1991; Madsen, 1988;
Peterson & Madsen, 2010; Tunks, 1992). The purpose of
this literature review is to examine the development of
transfer of learning over the past 40 years and to consider
the implications for music education practices. The fol-
lowing sections include (a) a theoretical overview of
transfer of learning, (b) the application of transfer frame-
works to curricular approaches, and (c) a review of select
studies from the music education literature that pertain to
transfer of learning. I will conclude by offering recom-
mendations for practice and future research.
1
University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sommer H. Forrester, Assistant Professor of Music Education, Department
of Performing Arts, University of Massachusetts Boston, University Hall,
Room 2255, 100 Morrissey Road, Boston, MA 02125, USA.
Email: sommer.forrester@umb.edu
Forrester 31
Theoretical Overview
Since the early 1950s, cognitive psychologists have
examined the process of learning and theorized how
humans acquire, transmit, store, retrieve, and transform
information (Tunks, 1992). Imbedded in this work is the
relationship between the flow of information, human
learning, and understanding. Cognitive theorists of trans-
fer and learning have examined the intricate components
of human learning and understanding through a range of
theoretical constructs. The information-processing the-
ory (Royer, 1979) represented the highly structured
nature of human memory, the learner’s ability to relate
new information to existing knowledge, and the process
of recalling information while making connections
between multiple points. Schema theory (Anderson,
1984) emerged from information-processing theory and
represented the relationship between how the memory
stores and organizes materials, patterns, structures, and
how this information is recalled and applied in new con-
texts. These examinations and theories are inextricably
bound and represent the foundation for research on
transfer and learning, and the connection to teaching and
educational reform.
Transfer of Learning and Education
The role of transfer of learning lies at the center of the
teaching and learning enterprise. Perkins and Salomon
(1992) defined transfer of learning as the process wherein
“ . . . learning in one context or with one set of materials
impacts on performances in another context or with
related materials” (p. 2). Tunks (1992) underscored the
importance of this transfer process in stating, “Our entire
educational system, in fact, is based on the premise that
what is learned in school will apply in other settings, and
that what is learned earlier will have some effect on later
learning or performance” (p. 437). This active process of
enculturation has honored and built on students’ prior
knowledge and has encouraged students to construct their
understanding through the careful balance between skill
acquisition and knowledge (Blythe, 1998; Bransford
et al., 2000; Brown et al., 1989; DeCorte, 2003; Duke &
Pierce, 1991; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005; Wiske, 1998).
Therefore, transfer of learning has been cited as a funda-
mental building block in developing autonomous learners
who are able to apply their knowledge to new and differ-
ent contexts throughout their lives (Brown et al., 1989).
Despite the widespread agreement that transfer of
learning is a fundamental goal of education, scholars,
educators, and cognitive scientists have grappled with
how transfer occurs, the factors and infrastructure needed
to promote transfer of learning, and the role of the teacher
and student in the process (Blythe, 1998; Bransford et al.
2000; DeCorte, 2003; Haskell, 2001; Perkins & Salomon,
1992; Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011; Wiggins &
McTighe, 2005; Wiske, 1998). Perkins and Salomon
(1992) noted that transfer of learning is often assumed on
the part of the learner; however, “no absolute line can be
drawn between ordinary learning and transfer” (p. 3). In
order to mitigate the divide between traditional learning
contexts (school, tests, assignments, tasks) and the con-
text of application (in the home, on the job, in society),
the authors (Perkins & Salomon, 1992) advocated that
educators strive to create purposeful opportunities to sup-
port transfer of learning.
Educational scholars have noted that the practice of
teaching and learning is complex work that appears sim-
ple (Ball, 2000; Clark & Lampert, 1986; Dewey,
1904/1964). Haskell (2001) highlighted the problem that
the cycle of thinking, perceiving and processing informa-
tion, and transferring knowledge to new contexts is rec-
ognized as a fundamental for all learning and yet, this
process rarely occurs in the instructional settings. Haskell
(2001) noted the importance of teachers using figurative,
analogous, metaphorical language, and indicated that all
learning is dependent on previous scenarios: “ . . . all
learning is transfer of learning” (p. 24). Furthermore,
Haskell (2001) stated as follows: “Transfer of learning is
thus not only extremely economical in terms of an indi-
vidual’s learning resources, it creates creativity and learn-
ing itself; it helps us to efficiently store, remember,
integrate, process, and retrieve information” (p. 34).
Haskell indicated teachers must adopt the spiral approach
where concepts and skills are constantly revisited, rein-
forced, and applied in different examples and levels. In
addition, Haskell stressed the importance of teaching stu-
dents how the subject content fits into the larger scheme.
The scaffold approach does not progress in a linear fash-
ion; rather, it is a fluid process that constantly refers to
previous examples while looking ahead to different
examples, contexts, and scenarios. To teach in this man-
ner, Haskell posited that teachers must be proficient in
transfer thinking.
The debates surrounding transfer of learning
(DeCorte, 2003) can be attributed to what Barnett and
Ceci (2002) explicated is “ . . . a failure to specify the
various dimensions that may be relevant to determining
whether and when transfer occurs” (p. 614). In response,
Barnett and Ceci (2002) developed a classification for
understanding and evaluating the nature of transfer in
learning contexts. Through this taxonomy, the authors
suggested ways to unify the definition of transfer and to
examine the characteristics of transfer through two broad
categories: content and context. In this model, content
refers to the learned skill:
32 Update 37(1)

. . . it is important to ascertain what the participants learned learning environments that support transfer of learning
before attempting to assess whether they could transfer across the curriculum.
what they learned because transfer performance might be
expected to differ depending on whether they learned a
specific fact or procedure or general principle. (Barnett & Teaching for Understanding
Ceci, 2002, p. 621)
In 1998, scholars from Harvard University’s Project
Zero group sought to address two questions: (a) What
Context refers to knowing when to apply something
does it mean to understand something? and (b) [What]
while considering how much time has elapsed between
kinds of curricular, learning experiences, and assessment
learning and transfer, the mind-set of the individual, and
supports students in developing understanding? (Blythe,
how the task is performed.
1998). In response, the scholars developed the Teaching
Barnett and Ceci (2002) concluded that utilizing their
for Understanding (TfU) framework. The initial goal of
taxonomy to further understand the highly contextualized
the TfU framework characterized how teachers support
nature and multidimensionality of transfer is mandatory,
learners in their development of understanding. Wiske
as it provides a process to identify and understand what
(1998) defined the TfU framework as follows: “ . . . [a]
the underlying elements are that contribute to the transfer
framework [that] structures inquiry to help teachers ana-
of learning. Given the debates, assumptions, and lack of
lyze, design, enact, and assess practice focused on the
clarity surrounding the range and nature of research sur-
development of students’ understanding” (p. 4). This
rounding transfer of learning, this taxonomy provided an
goal-orientated model for learning emphasizes ideas,
important foundation for research, as well as practical
processes, and relationships, and promotes understand-
conclusions and applications related to research on trans-
ing through student inquiry. The framework is structured
fer of learning.
around four key elements: (a) generative topics: priori-
Bransford et al. (2000) and DeCorte (2003) indicated
tizing content that is central to the subject matter and/or
that the sociological context is also an important aspect to
relevant to students and teachers; (b) understanding
consider in the development of student understanding.
goals: clarifying what the students will come to under-
Providing students with problem-solving tasks that are
stand by focusing on fundamental ideas; (c) perfor-
relatable to their everyday lives can enhance the learning
mances of understanding: engaging students by having
process. In doing so, students are encouraged to employ
them apply, extend, and synthesize what they know;
the three levels of knowledge (mastery, conditional, con-
and (d) ongoing assessment: promoting reflection by
ceptual) while becoming aware of themselves in the pro-
having students and teachers conduct their assessment
cess. This metacognitive approach reinforces the cycle of
(Blythe, 1998). The TfU framework represented an
enculturation, honors prior experiences, and encourages
important outgrowth of the theory of learning and
critical self-reflection. The teacher’s role as a facilitator
transfer as it was a research-based and classroom-tested
who provides reinforcement and support is integral to this
approach designed to help teachers guide students
process. Bransford et al. (2000) noted, “People often need
beyond the mastery of facts to apply knowledge flexibly
help in order to use relevant knowledge that they have
in unfamiliar contexts (Blythe, 1998).
acquired, and they usually need feedback and reflection
so that they can try out and adapt their previously acquired
skills and knowledge in new environments” (p. 203). Understanding by Design
Understanding the powerful role the teacher and the
Building on the premise outlined in the TfU framework,
learning environment can play in this process is critical
the Understanding by Design (UbD) framework was
for the development of learning, understanding, and
designed to help educators think purposefully about cur-
transfer of learning (DeCorte, 2003).
ricular planning, assessment, and school reform.
Developed by Wiggins and McTighe in 1999, the authors
Applications to Teaching and noted the framework was grounded in the idea that:
“Teaching is a means to an end, and planning precedes
Learning: Curricular Approaches teaching. The most successful teaching begins, therefore,
As with any theoretical framework, it is important to con- with clarity about desired learning outcomes and about
sider the relationship between theory and practice, and the evidences that will show that learning has occurred”
the application to teaching and learning. In the case of (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 7). This premise speaks to
transfer of learning, relating the philosophical, psycho- the notion that understanding and transfer of learning are
logical, and sociological components to student under- achieved through purposeful curricular design, as
standing and teaching involves deconstructing how opposed to piecing facts and content together with the
teachers conceive content, deliver instruction, and create expectation that learners will connect the dots.
Forrester 33
The UbD framework is structured around a three-stage
backward curricular design to align curriculum with the
desired learning outcomes and foster understanding on
the part of the learner. The three stages of the backward
design include the following: “(a) Desired results; (b)
Evidence; (c) Learning plan” (Wiggins & McTighe,
2005, p. 18). The goal of the backward design is to help
students understand the purpose of the activity and the
goal of the task, so they can develop and apply under-
standing to new contexts. Throughout the framework, the
authors noted the connection between transfer of learning
and understanding: “The ability to transfer knowledge
and skill effectively involves the capacity to take what we
know and use it creatively, flexibly, fluently, in different
settings or problems, on our own” (Wiggins & McTighe,
2005, p. 40). This systematic approach to deconstructing
content toward a known goal positions learners and their
understanding at the center of the teaching and learning
experience and promotes transfer of learning.
Ritchhart et al. (2011) extended the fundamental
premise of UbD by advocating that the learner must be at
the center of the teaching and learning process. In order to
support learners, it is important for teachers to share their
thought processes so learners are able to experience how
they plan, monitor, and challenge their thinking, while
fostering learning in others. This concept of modeling to
advance student development relates to Haskell’s research
(2001) who indicated that in order to create the necessary
conditions for transfer of learning, teachers must be pro-
ficient in transfer and integrate this approach in all aspects
of the classroom experience. The following section will
explore select studies from the music education literature
that pertain to transfer of learning, the relationship
between music thinking in various contexts, and student
thinking while engaged in music tasks.
Transfer of Learning in Music
Education
Tunks (1992) determined that transfer of learning does
not have a prominent place in the body of music educa-
tion literature, due to the assumption that transfer is auto-
matic. Based on a critical review of literature, Tunks
concluded that the majority of research studies in music
education and transfer are limited, inconclusive, or the
nature of the research is mislabeled as transfer. Tunks
asserted that research in music education that deals with
transfer is typically focused on key areas including the
elements and effect of practice, the application of perfor-
mance skills, the relationship between music listening
skills, and the application of these skills outside of the
classroom. Tunks posited that transfer in music learning
does not occur through practice alone. This assertion
highlights the importance of metacognition and supports
Perkins and Salomon’s (1992) contention indicating that
transfer is a conscious effort that is dependent on the
“extent and efficiency of initial learning” (p. 444).
Achieving transfer in music is largely dependent on the
nature of instruction and the emphasis on schemata,
reflection, motivation, and practice.
Transfer of learning in a music context can take on
many forms ranging from, but not limited to, transferring
knowledge and skills from one type of ensemble to
another; performing a new music genre or style; to com-
posing in a variety of styles and for different ensembles.
Duke and Pierce (1991) noted the sophisticated nature of
music performance skills and the relationship between
perception, cognition, proprioception, and motor behav-
ior in the transfer processes in music settings. In their
study, the authors examined the effects of melodic con-
texts and performance on 27 music majors’ (undergradu-
ate and graduate) ability to perform a previously learned
music passage in a novel context. While the authors
noted the performance ability of the participants was an
important variable to consider with the results from this
study, they underscored that formal and informal transfer
cannot be assumed in a music learning context regard-
less of ability level on the part of the student. The authors
cautioned,
It is possible, however, that a primary impediment to many
students’ successful participation in music making involves
a fundamental inability to generalize and apply knowledge
and skills across the various situations that are related to the
behaviors of music . . . teachers may structure more
successful experiences and facilitate greater independence
on the part of their students by devoting time and attention
on the application of knowledge and skills across a variety
of music contexts. (Duke & Pierce, 1991, p. 99)
This statement reinforces Tunks’ (1992) assertion that
students’ demonstrated ability to perform a musical task
in one context, may not guarantee their ability to seam-
lessly perform the same task in a new context.
A study by Bononi (2000) examined students’ ability
to transfer knowledge in music from the large ensemble
context to autonomous music making scenarios. Bononi
analyzed the nature of student thinking based on
verbal interactions throughout the 16-week study.
Overwhelmingly, the participants modeled what they
had been taught in the large ensemble context concern-
ing how to navigate their way through the rehearsal pro-
cess. Students focused largely on error detection in the
chamber rehearsals and rarely dealt with music concepts.
Bononi (2000) deduced this finding could be a result of
“a weakness in initially learning these concepts well
enough to explain them or that [the students] simply are
not given enough opportunities to explain concepts as
part of their ensemble experience” (p. 206). The instances
34 Update 37(1)
of spontaneous and unprompted transfer occurred less
often than anticipated by the researcher. Bononi noted
that teacher-centered models of instruction did not allow
for adequate development of students’ problem solving
skills. These skills are necessary for autonomous deci-
sion making in music. Bononi asserted that instructional
models must provide students with detailed sequencing
that promotes student understanding and capacity to
transfer their learning to new contexts.
Strand (2005) examined transfer theories and research
on children’s compositional practices in a general music
classroom. Using a four-part, reflective spiral, teacher
research design, Strand aimed to capture the development
of students’ transfer ability. Strand noted that the partici-
pants’ success was achieved due to the use of direct
instruction and guided discovery techniques. Autonomous
learning and high-road transfer were achieved through
the supportive environment where mentoring and collab-
oration occurred. Emergent themes from the findings
point to the importance of using a systematic approach
involving reflection through each stage of the process.
Strand indicated that instruction was modified to meet the
needs of the students, and the instructional strategies
were made visible to students.
Onward: Implications for Music
Education
The review of studies in music education represents
scholars who examined different aspects of transfer of
learning, with different populations, yet arrived at similar
conclusions that address the relationship between the
nature of instruction, teacher action, and student under-
standing. The results from these studies reinforce the
notion that in order for transfer to occur, deliberate and
systematic instructional strategies are required. Music
educators might, therefore, consider instructional
approaches that model transfer of learning, including tak-
ing a known concept and applying it to another context,
providing ample opportunities for students to engage in
systematic reflection and application of knowledge to a
new context, and creating opportunities for students to
solve music problems in small and large groups.
Exploring the connections between cognitive function,
skill development, and creativity demands a renewed com-
mitment to understanding how students conceive of music
tasks, how students construct knowledge and understand-
ing, and the challenges they face in applying their music
understanding to new contexts. An important consideration
in this area of scholarship is the individual nature of devel-
oping knowledge and understanding with students. This
process is constructive and related to students’ sociological
understanding and reflective practice. Furthermore, this
process is dependent on the teacher’s ability to deconstruct
content in a way that is accessible, contextually appropri-
ate, and related to the individual needs of the students and
their ongoing development as learners.
Teaching for transfer of learning is dependent on the
conditions for learning that are established by the teacher.
Creating an environment where students are encouraged
to think critically and reflectively demands a deliberate
and systematic approach to instruction that is process ori-
entated and rooted in the development of understanding.
This learner-centered model involves the dynamic inter-
action between the teacher and student. Younker (2012)
indicated as follows: “Questioning, inquiring, and being
curious in communities of learning involves all partici-
pants, who are recognized as stakeholders and knowledge
bearers, and who construct understanding and meaning
through active participation” (p. 169). Fostering transfer
of learning in music involves providing opportunities for
students to engage in critical thinking and reflective
learning as performers, listeners, and creators, through
goal-orientated instruction.
Music education researchers have found that teachers’
ability to cultivate their development of understanding in
transfer is mandatory in order to model, support, and
mentor students (Bononi, 2000; Duke & Pierce, 1991;
Strand, 2005). This assertion supports education scholars
who have contended that teaching for transfer of learning
is dependent on the conditions for learning that are estab-
lished by teachers (Haskell, 2001; Ritchhart et al., 2011;
Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Thus, in the case of music
teacher education, creating a space for preservice music
teachers to develop transfer knowledge may include cre-
ating purposeful opportunities across undergraduate
coursework where preservice music teachers can apply
their knowledge to new contexts. For instance, encourag-
ing preservice music teachers to (a) reflect, identify, and
articulate central principles about music skills from their
studio lessons or ensemble experiences and apply this
knowledge to micro-teaching scenarios in a methods
class; (b) denote the relationship between the content in
music history courses and music theory courses, and how
their understanding of this content might inform how
they might approach designing a unit for P–12 music stu-
dents; and (c) identify their experiences in secondary
techniques courses as novices and how their experiences
might inform pedagogical approaches in methods courses.
The aforementioned examples are a few ideas of how
to provide opportunities for preservice music teachers to
connect their knowledge and skills as musicians to their
practice as educators through strategic, goal orientated,
and reflective learning activities. Ensuring curricular
alignment across the degree program is an important
area for consideration as it may help preservice teachers
make curricular connections and develop a deep under-
standing of transfer of learning. Younker (2012) noted,
Forrester 35
“ . . . only then, will our future educators, and hopefully,
their students think and act as musicians do, as they con-
struct and understand music experiences in meaningful
ways” (p. 178).
Transfer of learning is considered to be a fundamental
goal of education, yet it is often assumed or left to chance
on the part of the learner. This paradox points to the
renewed investment in creating purposeful learning
opportunities for students and preparing teachers who are
equipped to translate their knowledge, skills, and disposi-
tions into meaningful interactions with students that pro-
mote transfer. In order for educators to teach for transfer
they must have experience using their knowledge autono-
mously and be able to solve authentic and appropriate
problems in music. Creating dynamic learning environ-
ments where learners are challenged to develop under-
standing and apply their knowledge to new contexts may
help reinforce the ultimate goal of education: developing
autonomous learners. In the case of music education, the
goal of developing autonomous learners reiterates the
overarching goal of developing autonomous musicians
who are able to engage with music in a wide range of
capacities throughout their lives.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisi-
tion of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13(9), 5–10.
doi:10.2307/1174873
Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining con-
tent and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach.
Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 241–247. doi:10.1177/
0022487100051003013
Barnett, S., & Ceci, S. (2002). When and where do we
apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612–637. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.128.4.612
Blythe, T. (1998). The teaching for understanding guide. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bononi, R. A. (2000). Student learning in a chamber music
ensemble: A study of transfer (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses data-
base. (UMI No. 9978964)
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000).
How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cogni-
tion and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,
18(1), 32–42. doi:10.2307/1176008
Clark, C., & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher think-
ing: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 37(5), 27–31. doi:10.1177/002248718603700506
DeCorte, E. (2003). Transfer as the productive use of acquired
knowledge, skills, and motivations. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12, 142–146. doi:10.1111/1467-
8721.01250
Dewey, J. (1964). John Dewey on education. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago. (Original work published 1904).
Duke, R. A. (2005). Intelligent music teaching: Essays on
the core principles of effective instruction. Austin, TX:
Learning and Behavior Resources.
Duke, R. A., & Pierce, M. (1991). Effects of tempo and context
on transfer of performance skills. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 39, 93–100. doi:10.2307/3344689
Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning, cognition, instruc-
tion, and reasoning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Madsen, C. K. (1988). Senior Researcher Award acceptance
address. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36, 133–
139. doi:10.2307/3344635
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning.
Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fb86/245e
6623502017940c796c01ed508c3d8208.pdf
Peterson, C. W., & Madsen, C. K. (2010). Encouraging cog-
nitive connections and creativity in the music classroom.
Music Educators Journal, 97(2), 25–29. doi:10.1177/00274
32110386613
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making
thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understand-
ing, and independence for all learners. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Boss.
Royer, J. M. (1979). Theories of the transfer of learning.
Educational Psychologist, 14, 53–69. doi:10.1080/0046
1527909529207
Strand, K. (2005). Exploring the relationship between instruc-
tion and transfer in 9–12 year-old students. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 165, 17–36.
Tunks, T. W. (1992). The transfer of music learning. In R.
Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching
and learning (pp. 437–447). New York, NY: Schirmer.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design.
New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking
research with practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Younker, B. A. (2012). Focusing on critical practice and insights
in the music teacher education curriculum. In C. Beynon &
K. Veblen (Eds.), Critical perspectives in Canadian music
education (pp. 165–180). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada:
Wilfred Laurier Press.