Skip to main content
Does Music Promote Students’ Creativity?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

If we want our students to think creatively, should they listen to music? If yes, does the timing matter?

Intuition might lead us either to a “yes” or to a “no.”

Yes: music might get students’ creative juices flowing. Especially if it’s upbeat, energetic, and particularly creative in itself, music might spark parallel creativity in our students’ thought processes.

No: on the other hand, music just might be a serious distraction. Students might focus so keenly on the music — or on trying to ignore the music — that they can’t focus on the creative work before them.

Do You Smell a CRAT?

Researcher Emma Threadgold used a common creativity test – with the unlikely acronym of CRAT – to answer this question.

Here’s how a CRAT works:

I give you three words: “dress,” “dial,” and “flower.”

You have to think of another word that – when combined with each of those words – produces a real word or phrase.

To solve a CRAT, you have to rifle through your word bank and try all sorts of combinations before – AHA! – you pull the correct answer up from the depths of your brain.

In this case, the correct answer is “sun”: as in, sundress, sundial, and sunflower.

The Results Are In

Threadgold and her team tested this creativity question several times, in order to explore several variables.

They played music with English lyrics, with foreign lyrics, and with no lyrics. They played upbeat, happy music.

They even played library noise – with the sound of a photocopier thrown in for good measure.

In every case, music made it harder to solve CRAT problems.

To put that in stark terms: music interfered with listeners’ creative thinking.

(For those of your interested in statistics, the Cohen’s d values here are astonishing. In one of the three studies, the difference between music and no music clocked in a d=2.86. That’s easily the highest d value I’ve seen in a psychology study. We’re typically impressed by a value above 0.67.)

Case Closed?

Having done such an admirably thorough study, has Threadgold’s team answered this question for good?

Nope.

As always, teachers should look not for one definitive study, but for several findings that point in the same direction.

And, we should also look for boundary conditions. This research might hold up for these particular circumstances. But: what other circumstances might apply?

For me, one obvious answer stands out: timing.

Other researchers have studied creativity by playing music before the creative task, not during it.

For instance, this study by Schellenberg found that upbeat music produces higher degrees of creativity in Canadian undergraduates AND in Japanese five-year-olds. (Unsurprisingly, the five-year-olds were especially creative after they sang songs themselves.)

In this study, crucially, they listened to the music before, not during, the task.

Threadgold’s study, in fact, cites other work where pre-test music enhanced creativity as well.

More Questions

Doubtless you can think of other related questions worth exploring.

Do people who learn to play music evince higher degrees of creativity in other tasks?

How about courses in music composition?

Music improvisation training?

Does this effect vary by age, by culture, by the kind of music being played?

For the time being, based on what I know about human attention systems, this study persuades me that playing music during the creative task is likely to be distracting.

Depending on what you want your students to do, you might investigate other essential variables.

__________________

On a related topic: for Dan Willingham’s thoughts on listening to music while studying, click here.

Taking Notes with Graphic Organizers
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

research-based advice for studentsWe’ve blogged (quite energetically) about the difference between handwritten and laptop notes.

Of course, other note-taking differences merit investigation as well.

For example: if students take handwritten notes, is it better to give them:

a complete lecture outline,

a partial lecture outline,

a bare-bones lecture outline,

or

a complete graphic organizer,

a partial one, or

an empty one?

Over at the Learning Scientists, Carolina Kuepper-Tetzel explores this question, and adds some thoughts of her own.

One Man’s Experience

This article particular caught my eye because it applies so directly to my own work.

When I talk with teachers, students, or parents about brains, I always provide them with option #5 above: an incomplete graphic organizer.

My goal: reduce working memory load. (I’m always focused on reducing extraneous working memory load.)

The informal feedback I get is strongly positive. Many teachers, in fact, tell me that they’ve started using the same form with their own students.

When you read Dr. Kuepper-Tetzel’s post, you’ll see how well (if at all) my practice accords with the research we have.

Do Collaborative Projects Reduce or Increase Working Memory Stress?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Should teachers ask students to work on projects in teams?

This question generates a great deal of heat.

Many education thinkers advocate for the benefits of teamwork. Others insist that learning happens one brain at a time, and so should not be cluttered with interference from other brains.

Working Memory: Blesses and Curses

Working memory allows humans to hold and reorganize facts and ideas in temporary mental storage.

When you do a word problem, you must decide which parts should be translated into an equation. (Those decisions take WM.) You have to recall the appropriate equation to use. (Ditto.) And, you must plug the correct data into the correct formula before you can arrive at an answer. (Re-ditto.)

Composing a new sentence in a foreign language? Lots of working memory demands.

Comparing Paul Lawrence Dunbar’s poetry with that of Countee Cullen? Yup.

Learning how to tell time? Once again – lots of working memory involved.

In other words, WM allows students to do practically everything that we want them to do in school.

And yet, this working memory blessing co-exists with a powerful curse: we just don’t have very much of it.

You probably can alphabetize five days of the work week. You probably can’t alphabetize 10 months of the year. The first task lies within WM limits; alas, the second goes way beyond them.

Collaboration’s WM Dangers

In a recent article, Paul Kirschner and others consider the WM benefits and perils of group work.

(These scholars, especially John Sweller, have elaborated “cognitive load theory” to explain the relationship between long-term memory, WM, and the external world of perception and experience. See here for a review.)

One important peril: the working memory demands created by collaboration. When students work together, they have to negotiate roles. They must create joint mental models. They have to schedule and prioritize and debate.

All these “musts” take up precious working memory space. The result might be that students get better at negotiating, modeling, and prioritizing. But, the WM devoted to those task might make it harder for them to learn the content at the heart of the project.

Of course: you might reasonably want your students to focus on the social-emotional skills. But, if you wanted them to focus on Shakespeare or Boyle’s law, then the project might not produce the results you hoped for.

Collaboration’s WM Benefits

At the same time, Kirschner & Co. also see working memory upsides to collaboration.

A particular cognitive task might include quite stiff WM demands. If the group includes members with the right kinds of background knowledge, then the WM chores can be divided up and managed more effectively.

Student A carries this part of the WM load.

Student B carries that part.

Student C takes care of the tricky last bit.

In this way, the WM whole can be greater than the sum of the parts.

In other words: if teachers can organize group projects so that a) the WM difficulties of collaboration remain low, and b) the benefits of sharing WM burdens remain high, then such collaboration truly help students learn.

Putting It Together

Kirschner’s article concludes with a list of key variables for teachers to track: task complexity, domain expertise, team size, and so forth.

Be aware that cognitive load theory gets a little jargony, and you’ll need some time to learn the lingo before the article makes sense.

However, if you can devote that time, I think you’ll benefit from its practical suggestions, and helpful frameworks for planning students’ collaborative learning.