Skip to main content
Beware: Too Much Structure Hinders Creativity (for Experts)
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

structure inhibits creativity

How can teachers foster our students’ creativity?

To explore that question, we can also reverse it: what inhibits creativity?

Two researchers at the University of Toronto wondered if information structure hinders creativity.  That is: do we interfere with imaginative impulses if we give people information within clear and logical hierarchies.

If that’s true, could we encourage creativity by presenting information in unstructured ways?

100 Nouns

Kim and Zhong explored this possibility with two different research paradigms.

In the first, they gave college students lists of 100 nouns and asked them “to generate as many sentences as they want” using those words.

Half of these students were given nouns in obvious groupings. All the “games” were listed together: chess, bingo, backgammon. All the “bodies of water”: river, ocean, waterfall. All the “tools,” “pieces of jewelry,” and “trees.” In other words, students got these nouns within a clearly structured system.

The other half of the students saw those 100 nouns listed in a jumble: meteor, wildebeest, soccer, hotel, Ukraine. This second list, clearly, lacks any coherent system.

When the sentences that students wrote were rated for creativity, researchers found a clear difference. Students who saw nouns in a structured list wrote notably less creative sentences that those who saw the jumbled list.

For these students, logical structure hinders creativity. Absence of that structure promotes it.

Lego Aliens

To be sure of their conclusion, Kim and Zhong then asked different students to build an alien out of Lego bricks.

As you’ve already predicted, half of the participants got their Legos pre-sorted by shape and color. The other half got the same pieces all mixed together in a bin.

Here again, structure reduced creativity. Legos mixed together prompted more creative aliens than Legos sorted into tidy categories.

“Structure hinders creativity”: classroom implications

Reading this study, teachers who value creativity might be tempted to reduce cognitive structures as much as possible.

Here’s my advice: DON’T DO THAT.

Why? Beginners need structure to learn. This study was done with experts. College students are already very good at writing sentences. They devoted childhood years to building objects out of Lego.

In other words, they were not learning a new skill. They were, instead, being creative with a well-tuned skill.

For this reason, we should take this study as guidance for student creativity in skills they have already mastered. For skills they are still learning, students need lots of guidance, and structure.

A Bilingual Advantage in New Language Acquisition?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

According to this new study, bilinguals learn new languages faster than monolinguals.

To reach this conclusion, this research looked at brain wave signatures as participants learned an artificial language.

AdobeStock_54036442_Credit

(Understanding electroencephalogram research is always tricky. Don’t feel bad if you’re not totally clear on what a P600 might be.)

The short version is this. As they learned this new language, neural patterns for  bilinguals resembled native speaker patterns relatively quickly. Those patterns for the monolinguals developed more slowly.

Limitation to Bilingual Advantage Research

We can’t be sure that this finding extrapolates to the real world. After all, this particular artificial language has only 13 words in it–four nouns, two adjectives, two adverbs, and so forth.

However, the study does tentatively support a widely-believed conclusion: the hardest language to learn is the second…

(By the way: we’ve posted about the potential benefits and detriments of bilingual education several times in the last year. You can click on “bilingual education” in the tags list on the right to see other articles.)

Growth Mindsets Help All Subgroups Learn
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Growth mindset helps subgroups

Research into Growth Mindsets often focuses on small groups of people: a class or two of 5th graders, a few dozen college students.

These studies allow researchers to draw conclusions about this specific group of students. However, we’re less sure about the sub-populations.

How does Mindset influence English Language Learners? Female students? Students from different social strata?

(more…)

Surprise! Less Oxytocin Might Improve Social Interaction
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

 Oxytocin downside

The hormone/neurotransmitter oxytocin has developed a great brand.

It gets credit for all sorts of good things. When new lovers meet, their giddy glow might result from oxytocin. When mothers hold their babies, oxytocin seems to widen their smiles.

Little wonder, then, that oxytocin has earned the nickname “the love hormone.”

(more…)

Don’t Be Fooled by the Learning Pyramid Myth
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_121864954 [Converted]_Credit

You have no doubt seen the tidy pyramid: students remember 5% of what they hear in a lecture, 10% of what they read, 20% of what they see, and so forth.

In crafting such a pyramid, its creators promote more active kinds of learning. The bottom of the pyramid, for example, might be “teaching others”: a highly active kind of learning that seems to generate all sorts of learning.

The Learning Pyramid Myth

The problem with the pyramid is not merely that it’s inaccurate, but that it’s incoherent. The Effortful Educator does a nice job of pointing out its obvious flaws, and of backing up his critique with specific sources.

As an easy introduction to that critique: any research producing numbers that are all divisible by 5 does seem rather suspicious…

(I first heard this critique from Charles Fadel at a Learning and the Brain conference in San Francisco 3 or 4 years ago. It just so happens that he’ll be speaking at the upcoming LatB conference–although on a different subject.)

The important lesson here goes beyond “always check the sources.” After all, if you look to see if this pyramid has been published elsewhere, you’ll find all sorts of examples.

Instead, the point is “always check the specific claims.” In this case, for example, you don’t need to see if someone has published a similar pyramid before; you need to see how the author supports the specific claim that students remember only 5% of what they hear in a lecture.

In fact, you should be most interested in research that focuses on students like yours.

Let’s imagine you found a study showing that students in a college art history class remembered 80% of what they heard in a lecture. That’s very interesting to college art history teachers–especially those who teach in the same way this particular professor does.

But, if you teach 5th graders, it doesn’t really help you very much.

Graphical representation of data can be inspiring: that’s one reason to be certain that the information in the graphic is correct.

[Addendum: 1/27/18] I’ve recently gotten some additional data on the “Learning Pyramid” from Charles Fadel. Enjoy!

Fadel Multimodal Learning Through Media – What the research says

The Struggles of Young-for-their-Grade Students
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Relatively young students

Several years ago I taught Jacob: an affable high school sophomore notable for his quick wit, his impressive height…and his immaturity. He was, technically speaking, goofy. Jacob’s peers noticed, and didn’t appreciate his antics. (Neither did I.)

When I met his parents for a teacher conference, I commented on his surprisingly juvenile behavior. They exchanged glances, and his mother said: “Well, he is the youngest student in the sophomore class. He could be a freshman.”

This news made all the difference to me. I had been fooled by Jacob’s 6′ 2″ frame. His behavior, odd for a 10th grader, was entirely appropriate for a 9th grader. When I started giving the structure he needed, he calmed down. And grew up.

By the end of the year, he worked with his classmates very effectively.

The Travails of Relatively Young Students…

A recent BrainBlogger post describes the Jacobs of the educational world. If a school has a strict cut-off date for a particular grade, then some students will be almost a full year younger than others.

In college, this difference shouldn’t matter much. After all, 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds should be emotionally and cognitively well matched.

In younger grades, however, that age difference can be huge. The age-appropriate developmental differences between the youngest and the oldest kindergartener might be substantial.

BrainBlogger’s author–identified only by her first name Naomi–outlines the alarming and ongoing consequences of this early developmental gap.

  • Relatively young students are likelier to be criticized for their immaturity–as happened with my student Jacob.
  • They are likelier to be diagnosed with ADHD.
  • Relatively older students are likelier to be accepted into Gifted programs, even if they’re not gifted.
  • Relatively young students are less likely to take the high-stakes exams that shape educational possibilities in some countries.
  • They are less likely to attend college, and also less likely to graduate from college.

…and, some benefits

At the same time, Naomi is careful to note the complexity of the question.

In the first place, as she writes, “the impact of [relative age effects] on educational attainment is…probabilistic not deterministic.” That is, some younger students will do just fine, even if their group is less likely to do so.

In fact, some research shows the advantages of being at the younger end of a grade’s age spectrum. For instance, younger students get the message that they need to work harder to succeed as much as their older peers, and so might have a better work ethic.

Next Steps

If you’d like to think more about this complex question, I’d start by looking over Naomi’s article. She lays out the research well, and includes sources from many different countries.

In the meanwhile, you’ve now got a helpful new question to ask. When working with students whose behavior makes you wonder about ADHD, you might start by looking up their age.

 

Can Meaningful Gestures Help STEM Students Learn Better?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Learning STEM with Gestures

As schools focus more on STEM disciplines, teachers strive to help our students master complex STEM concepts.

After all, it’s hard enough to say “magnetic anisotrophy,” much less understand what it is.

Researchers Dane DeSutter and Mike Stieff have several suggestions for teachers. Specifically, they argue that spatial thinking–essential to many STEM concepts–can be enhanced by appropriate gestures.

(more…)

Does Forest-Bathing Benefit Your Anxious Amygdala?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_94176737

You have perhaps heard of “forest-bathing,” the Japanese practice of taking in the forest atmosphere to boost health.

For many, the idea has intrinsic appeal. (I work at a summer camp in leafy Vermont, and so am immediately drawn to ideas like these.)

Do we see any neural changes as a result of time spent in the forest?

The short answer: living near forests helps

According to a recent study looking at residents of Berlin, the answer is “yes.”

Those who live in or near forests demonstrate more “amygdala integrity” than those who don’t. In fact, forest-living promotes healthy amygdala development even more than living near parks or other green spaces.

The study itself is quite technical, but the headline message is clear: the place where you live can influence brain development.

A Longer Answer: are we sure?

As is always true, we have many reasons to pause before we make dramatic changes in response to this study.

First, the authors conclude that living near forest promote “amygdala integrity,” but they don’t say what “amygdala integrity” means. It’s hard to be opposed to “integrity,” but I wish I knew more about this part of the finding.

Second, we should be cautious when evaluating research that supports our own biases. If you–like me–LOVE spending time in the forest, then you’ll be tempted to wave this study about to support your long-held convictions.

“See!” you might cry, “I’ve always told you that forests were good for you and [**whispering**] your amygdala integrity!”

Research that supports our own pet causes can often take advantage of our blindspots. We should be especially careful in promoting it.

Third, there’s an unfortunate history of people getting excited about “nature is really good for your brain” research.

The New York Times got very excited about a study trumpeting the benefits of walking through a forest, despite real concerns about methodology in that study.

And yet…

…despite these three reservations, I’m inclined to think that the researchers are on to something here. Living in an environment that mirrors our evolutionary heritage might very well be good for our brains’ development.

Improving the Syllabus: Surprising Benefits of Jumbling
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_119098880_Credit

Recent entries on this blog have focused on the kind of practice that helps students learn best.

(Hint: it rhymes with “retrieval schmactrice.”)

What can researchers tell us about the schedule of that practice?

Imagine that my students are studying three different grammar topics: direct and indirect objects, predicate nominatives and predicate adjectives, and prepositional phrases. How should I organize the practice problems on the syllabus?

Jumbling practice problems?

I might put those practice problems in chunks: all the in/direct object questions, then all the PN and PA problems, and then the prep phrase problems. (Psychologists call this schedule “blocking,” because students are practicing in blocks.)

Or, I might jumble all the practice problems together: a prep phrase question followed by an indirect object question followed by a predicate adjective problem. (The technical term here is “interleaving.”)

Which schedule works better?

And, does that schedule help both factual learning (grammar) and motor learning (tennis)?

This brief video, starring Bob Bjork, has the answers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=l-1K61BalIA

As a bonus, here’s a study where a college professor tried to interleave material in her classroom.