November 2022 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content
Walking Promotes Creativity? A Skeptic Weighs In…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

When teachers try to use psychology research in the classroom, we benefit from a balance of optimism and skepticism.

Family walking toward camera in autumn woods

I confess, I’m often the skeptic.

When I hear that – say – “retrieval practice helps students learn,” I hope that’s true, but I want to see lots of research first.

No matter the suggestion…

… working memory training!

… dual coding!

… mindfulness!

… exercise breaks!!!

… I’m going to check the research before I get too excited. (Heck, I even wrote a book about checking the research, in case you want to do so as well.)

Here’s one surprising example.

Because I really like the outdoors (summer camp, here I come!), I’d LOVE to believe that walking outside has cognitive benefits.

When I get all skeptical and check out the research…it turns out that walking outside DOES have cognitive benefits.

As I wrote back in May, we’ve got enough good research to persuade me, at least for now, that walking outdoors helps with cognition.

Could anything be better?

Yup, Even Better

Yes, reader, I’ve got even better news.

The research mentioned above suggests that walking restores depleted levels of both working memory and attention.

“Yes,” I hear you ask, “but we’ve got other important mental functions. What about creativity? What does the research show?”

I’ve recently found research that looks at that very question.

Alas, studying creativity creates important research difficulties.

How do you define “creativity”?

How do you measure it?

This research, done by Oppezzo and Schwartz, defines it thus: “the production of appropriate novelty…which may be subsequently refined.”

That is: if I can come up with something both new and useful, I’ve been creative – even if my new/useful thing isn’t yet perfect.

Researchers have long used a fun test for this kind of creativity: the “alternative uses” test.

That is: researchers name an everyday object, and ask the participants to come up with alternative uses for it.

For example, one participant in this study was given the prompt “button.” For alternative uses, s/he came up with…

“as a doorknob for a dollhouse, an eye for a doll, a tiny strainer, to drop behind you to keep your path.”

So much creativity!

Once these researchers had a definition and a way to measure, what did they find?

The research; the results

This research team started simple.

Participants – students in local colleges – sat for a while, then took a creativity test. Then they walked for a while, and took second version of that test.

Sure enough, students scored higher on creativity after they walked than after they sat.

How much higher? I’m glad you asked: almost 60% higher! That’s a really big boost for such a simple change.

However, you might see a problem. Maybe students did better on the 2nd test (after the walking) because they had had a chance to practice (after the sitting)?

Oppezzo and Schwartz spotted this problem, and ran three more studies to confirm their results.

So, they had some students sit then walk, while others walked then sat.

Results? Walking still helps.

In another study, they had some students walk or sit indoors, and walk or sit outdoors.

Results: walking promotes creativity both indoors and out.

Basically, they tried to find evidence against the hypothesis that walking boosts creativity…and they just couldn’t do it. (That’s my favorite kind of study.)

Just One Study?

Long-time readers know what’s coming next.

We teachers should never change our practice based on just one study – even if that study includes 4 different experiments.

So, what happens when we look for more research on the topic?

I’ve checked out my go-to sources: scite.ai and connectedpapers.com. (If you like geeking out about research, give them a try – they’re great!)

Sure enough, scite.ai finds 13 studies that support this conclusion, and 3 that might contradict it. (In my experience, that’s a good ratio.)

Connectedpapers.com produces fewer on-point results. However, the most recent study seems like a very close replication, and arrived at similar findings.

In brief: although I’m usually a skeptic, I’m largely persuaded.

TL;DR

Walking outdoors helps restore working memory and attention; walking either indoors or outdoors enhances creativity (at least as measured by the “alternative uses”  test).

I’d love to see some studies done in schools and classrooms. For the time being, I think we have a persuasive foundation for this possible conclusion.

Our strategies for putting this research to good use will, of course, be different for each of us. But it’s good to know: simply walking about can help students think more creatively.


Oppezzo, M., & Schwartz, D. L. (2014). Give your ideas some legs: the positive effect of walking on creative thinking. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition40(4), 1142.

ADHD and Asperger Syndrome in Smart Kids and Adults by Thomas Brown
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD

In ADHD and Asperger Syndrome in Smart Kids and Adults: Twelve Stories of Struggle, Support, and Treatment, Thomas Brown shares engaging and informative stories of gifted individuals with ADHD. This series of case studies takes on the traditional definitions and misconceptions of both ADHD and Asperger’s syndrome, focusing instead on how clusters of symptoms including social-emotional skills and an in-depth understanding of the individual’s social environment reveal a fascinating and useful approach to diagnosis and treatment.

Brown does not shy away from critiques of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and illustrates his perspective by walking us through several diagnoses and treatments for individuals with these symptoms from across age groups. Particular attention is given to one of the interesting puzzles of ADHD in which the symptoms are situational and not consistently expressed. When an individual is engaged in an activity they are interested in, the symptoms of ADHD seem to subside, and strong executive function may be expressed in that context. As a result, parents, teachers, and individuals with ADHD may inappropriately interpret the attentional and emotion regulation problems as simply a lack of willpower. Throughout each of the cases, Brown demonstrates how the symptoms of ADHD often lead to these types of misunderstandings and how diagnoses can lead to a sense of relief and enable the utilization of medical and psychotherapeutic interventions to manage the symptoms.

What makes Brown’s case studies so important is that he takes an integrated view of ADHD. He argues that an emotional component of the diagnosis is crucial and often neglected. Individuals differ in their emotional regulation problems and these case studies illustrate these regulatory symptoms and their situational nature. Bringing emotional and cognitive features into the same diagnosis criteria connects well with the literature on the fallacy that cognitive skills and emotional skills are separate psychological functions; both rely on the same neural circuitry leading to motivation, regulation, and potential disruption. Pooling together the traditional reliance on regulating focus as a primary symptom with the regulation of working memory, regulation of emotional reactions and frustration, the initiation of effort, self-monitoring, the regulation of actions, and the ability to activate engagement in work rounds out the diagnosis to include the whole person. This is especially useful when teachers or parents view ADHD as a more academic skill and are made aware of how ADHD is a lived experience across life domains.

Important for this text is also a deep impassioned discussion concerning the now absent diagnoses of Asperger’s syndrome which has now been absorbed into the updated diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. To be honest, this was an area I began to read with a certain amount of trepidation, but the author offers very convincing arguments for the reintroduction of Asperger’s syndrome into the DSM giving me great pause in my preconceived beliefs. The unique clusters of symptoms and ways to manage symptoms separate this disorder in convincing ways from Autism. Moreover, the integration of ADHD and Asperger’s into this text shows the important and informative comorbidity of the symptoms.

The development of his case studies respects the social ecology of individuals in this group, relying not solely on standardized diagnostics but evaluating how impairments may be displayed differentially across a person’s life. Asking questions of the patients to reveal their unique symptomology rather than imposing a diagnosis. The individual’s perceived relationships with family, friends, coworkers and teachers are key to effective interventions. Building on this, the book also has an extensive final section offering resources for diagnosis and treatment.

While this book is great for the clinician, it would also be of great use to individuals who interact with this population regularly. It helps the reader understand their stories and teaches the reader how the skilled clinician listens to get more complete stories of the individual – not treating the individual as a collection of symptoms but understanding the complex role ADHD plays in their lives. In addition, this book is a useful window into a variety of diverse human experiences. In some ways, these stories are unique while simultaneously speaking to us all – building a sense of compassion for the miraculous ways the brain contributes to what it means to be human and part of a community.

The Most Important 5 Minutes in Class: The Primacy/Recency Effect
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

As we put our lesson plans together, we teachers want to know: are some minutes more valuable than others?

Student Holding Clock

That is:

Do students remember most at the 10-minute mark of the lesson, because they’re mentally revved up?

Or, perhaps they remember most from the final five minutes, because the whole class has led to this grand conclusion.

Or, perhaps some other time slot generates the most learning, because psychology reasons.

What does the research tell us?

Start Here

I occasionally see teaching advice that seeks to answer this question. That advice typically begins with a fascinating research pool.

Here’s the story.

Researchers present students with — say — a list of 15 words. After distraction, how many  words do students remember? And, can we predict which ones?

Several studies suggest a consistent answer.

Students tend to remember words from the beginning of the list. Researchers call that the “primacy” effect.

And, they remember words from the end of the list. That result gets the moniker “recency effect.”

Going all the way back to 1962, this primacy/recency effect has a lot of research behind it. (For a more recent study, click here.)

Lab to Classroom

So, how should teachers plan our lessons based on this particular finding?

Let’s imagine that I tell my students a list of 8 instructions. Because of the primacy/recency effect, I suspect they’ll remember the early and late instructionst better than the ones in the middle. (Hint: maybe I should write down a long list of instructions…)

But: what does this effect tell us about the most valuable teaching time during a class period as a whole?

From time to time, scholars who translate psychology research for classroom teachers make this argument:

The primacy/recency effect suggests that the first several minutes of class, and the final several minutes of class, have the greatest effect on learning.

That is: For the same reason that students remember the first and last instruction from my list of 8, they’ll learn the most during the first and last minutes of class.

Voila: a research-based answer to the question.

I confess, however, that I myself have doubts.

The argument says, in effect:

Rules governing mental processes for 60-120 seconds also govern mental processes for 45-80 minutes.

Honestly, I’m just not sure that’s plausible. My doubts spring from two sources.

Doubts, and More Doubts

In the first place, I doubt this advice because it extrapolates so far beyond the initial research conditions.

If research tells me something about — say — college students, that conclusion might also apply to 1st graders. But it might not. 1st graders aren’t college students.

If research tells me something about adolescents in Iceland, that conclusion might apply to teens in Brazil. But it might not. Icelandic culture differs from Brazilian culture.

And, if research tells me about mental functions over one minute, that conclusion might apply to 20 minutes. (Or 45, or 80.) But IT MIGHT NOT. One minute isn’t twenty.

Long-time readers know I always focus on “boundary conditions.” From my perspective, this advice goes WAY beyond the boundaries of the initial research.

By the way: I’ve asked SEVERAL wise people if they know of primacy/recency research that goes beyond a minute or two. So far, the answer is “no.”

The second reason I doubt this advice because of the specific mental functions involved.

As far as I can tell, researchers explain the primacy/recency effect by talking about short-term memory and working memory.

Both of these mental faculties describe very short-term mental functions. In my grad-school classes, our profs typically said that working memory holds information somewhere between 5 and 30 seconds.

If, in fact, the primacy/recency effect results from short-term and working memory functions, then those findings almost certainly won’t apply to mental processes that take 30+ minutes.

Like, say, our classes.

Just Answer the Question

If this advice doesn’t hold, what can research tell us about the “most important five minutes in class”?

I’ve got two answers.

Answer #1:

I’ve asked lots of people if they have a resaerch-informed answer to this question. So far, no one has a strong “yes.” But, If I hear of one, I’ll pass it along.

And, btw, a friend has answered “we really have to research that question!” So, I’ll let you know if/when his results come through.

Answer #2:

Long-time readers know my mantra: “don’t just do this thing; instead, think this way.”

In this case, I don’t think we can plausibly identify any one time slot that consistently generates the most learning.

Instead, we want to use core ideas from cognitive science to structure lesson plans effectively.

Use retriveal practice.

Beware working-memory overload.

Foster attention.

Activate prior knowledge.

And so forth.

If we follow this approach, every minute will build ultimately — and more-or-less equally — toward students’ learning.


Castel, A. D. (2008). Metacognition and learning about primacy and recency effects in free recall: The utilization of intrinsic and extrinsic cues when making judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition36(2), 429-437.

Working Memory in Everyday Life
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Imagine this scenario: you’re standing in the CVS toothpaste aisle, trying to decide.

You think you should be able to recognize something familiar, but honestly there are so many choices.

Which brand are you loyal to?

Do you want mint?

Fluoride? Foaming? Whitening?

A patented “sensitive teeth” formula? Bacon flavor?

I think I made up the bacon. But, given all those choices and all the combinations, you simply can’t decide.

The Roman Coloseum on a sunny day, with lots of people in view

If you’re like me, you feebly grab at something plausible and make a dash for the register.

If you’ve had a long day of grading, you might just give up entirely.

So: what on earth is going on in your head? Why is picking a box of toothpaste so exhausting?

Cognition Im/possible

When I meet with teachers, I regularly discuss the importance of working memory.

This vital cognitive capacity allows students to hold on to several bits of information, and to reorganize/combine them into new facts, processes, and mental models.

Oversimplifying a bit, you could say it’s where the learning starts happening in the mind.

This essential mental process, however, creates two important problems.

The first problem: our students just don’t have very much working memory.

If you see students forget the question they were about to ask, or give up on a shockingly simple task, or lose focus completely, you might just be looking at working-memory overload.

It happens all the time.

The second problem: most of the ideas that we want our students to learn already exist in our own long-term memory.

We really struggle to see the working-memory load included in their work, because we already know how to do it.

Why can’t they do this simple math problem?

Why do they struggle to use new vocabulary words into a sentence?

And, why isn’t the answer to a history question perfectly obvious?

In every case, the correct answer is in our long-term memory, but students must wrestle with it in their working-memory.

In other words, our own expertise obscures our students’ mental struggles from us.

But: when we go to the CVS toothpaste aisle, we know exactly what they’re going through. Too many mental variables – not enough headspace. Ugh.

When In Rome…

I’ve spent the last week in Rome for a conference, and – believe it or not – found myself thinking about all that toothpaste.

Why? Because: museums.

I visited several museums, and was repeatedly struck by my own working-memory overload.

For example, the room with all those coins:

What should I be learning from the hundreds (and hundreds!!) of doubloons and coppers and denarii?

Which are the most important examples?

Should I spot trends or cycles or dramatic shifts?

Of course, the museum folks know that I have those questions, so they provide answers:

Hundreds and hundreds of little cards with LOTS of information about the coins.

All that information includes specialized vocabulary.

And those vocabulary words get helpful definitions in parentheses.

All these answers – the information, the vocabulary, the definitions – benefit other experts in ancient coins.

But they leave me even more confused and overwhelmed.

In other words: like some teachers, museum experts did not recognize the cognitive overload experienced by many students/museum-goers.

I wanted to learn.

I wanted to understand.

Certainly I wanted to appreciate.

But I just didn’t know how to process SO MUCH STUFF. And, don’t get me started on  the rooms with helmets or wine-jugs…

Inherent Expertise

At the same time I noted my own experience of working-memory overload, I experienced several museum collections that did NOT overwhelm my brain.

For instance, the first room (more or less) in the Vatican Museum includes several hundred busts: matrons, soldiers, children, priests, emperors, even an enslaved person.

To my surprise, I didn’t feel overwhelmed; instead, I felt curious and enticed. I wanted to look at the faces and speculate about their identities and stories and personalities.

Why the different reaction? Here’s my hypothesis:

I have no expertise in coins (or wine jars), and so all those samples felt overwhelming.

However, I have LOTS of expertise with faces. I spend most of my days interacting with them and the personalities behind them.

My inherent expertise with faces meant that 1000 busts felt fun and interesting, whereas 1000 helmets filled me with boredom and dread.

Classroom Implications

I said above that our teacherly expertise makes it difficult for us to spot our students’ working memory struggles.

For that reason, I think we should always look out for the working-memory overload that we all experience.

Driving to a new location in a rental car? Wondering where the rear defrost button is, and when to turn left? Could be working memory overload…

Navigating a new cafeteria, trying to find the silverware and the beverages and the gluten-free options? The salad dressing is where again? Yup: working memory overload…

Too many options when you’re trying to choose a hotel on that website? Perhaps you’re furious about all those helpful pop-ups? You know the feeling…

In brief: the better we get at recognizing working-memory problems in our own lives, the better we may become at spotting the problems our students are likely to have.

Empathy may be the pathway to understanding.

And, that empathy just might help us teach better.

Earworms and Sleep: What Will They Research Next?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Just last week, I spoke with middle- and upper-school students about learning.

Student lying in bed listening to music on earphones

We all know — and these students certainly know — that learning is hard. So, does cognitive science have any practical suggestions to help them study and learn?

Yes, reader, it does.

We know that retrieval practice helps learning much more than simple review.

We know that multitasking really isn’t a thing.

And, we know that exercise and sleep really help learning.

This last point — the importance of sleep — can be tricky.

After all, students say that they don’t have time to sleep — they have too much homework.*

Several students asked me: “I’m having trouble falling asleep. What do you suggest?”

In the moment, I suggested having a routine. Go to bed at the same time every night (as much as possible).

But, just a few days ago, a new study came across my desk…

Music and Sleep

I’ve often written about Dr. Michael Scullin’s research (for instance, here and here). He typically researches really practical questions. And, he studies and writes about them in unusually clear ways.

So, I’m a fan.

His most recent study looked at an unexpected topic: earworms.

You know: those infuriating tunes that get stuck in your head.

You just can’t get rid of them. (No, I’m not going to mention a song about very young scary fish that have huge teeth and eat seals and occasionally terroize people. “Doo doo doo doo doo doo.”)

What effect do earworms have on sleep?

Questions and Answers

Research into sleep can get quite technical. We start talking about “spindle detection” and “polysomnography” and “frontal slow oscillation activity.”

Rather than go into the details, I’ll offer a quick summary of the conclusions:

First: survey results suggest that most people (87%!) think that listening to music will improve sleep (or, at least, not harm it).

However — a big however — people who reported listening to relatively more music also report relatively lower sleep quality.

Second: the same survey results suggest that “earworms” make up a big part of this problem.

That is: the more music I listen to, the more earworms I experience. And, the more earworms I experience, the worse I sleep.

YIKES.

Third: you might think that music with lyrics results in more earworms than music without lyrics. Scullin’s team, in fact, thinks that’s the “intuitive view.”

Well, as so often happens, our intuitions are wrong.

Believe it or not, people who listen to instrumental versions of popular songs have more earworms — and worse sleep — than those who listen to the songs themelves.

So, What To Do?

What advice should we be giving students about sleep — other than, “get at least 8 hours”?

Scullin’s team sums up their study this way:

There are few behaviors as prevalent in young adults as listening to music, and many regularly listen to music as part of their bedtime routine. Listening to music feels relaxing, but familiar and repetitive music can trigger involuntary musical imagery that worsens sleep quality and daytime functioning.

In other words: to reduce earworms and sleep better, don’t listen to music before going to sleep. And, instrumental versions of popular songs seem to be especially likely to generate earworms.

I can’t believe I’m typing this, but: Listener beware!


* When students say to me, “I can’t sleep, I have too much homework,” I say, “Let’s think about this:

‘Homework’ is anything that helps you learn more.

Sleep helps you learn more.

Therefore, sleep is homework.

Do your sleep homework, and you will learn more.”


Scullin, M. K., Gao, C., & Fillmore, P. (2021). Bedtime music, involuntary musical imagery, and sleep. Psychological Science32(7), 985-997.