Skip to main content

Tag: exercise

Walking Promotes Creativity? A Skeptic Weighs In…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
November-28-2022

Walking Promotes Creativity? A Skeptic Weighs In…

Read More

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 cognition, 40(4), 1142.

What’s Better than Attention? Attention + LEARNING!
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-01-2020

What’s Better than Attention? Attention + LEARNING!

Read More

To learn in school, I need to pay attention.

More precisely, I need to pay attention to the subject I’m learning.

If I’m attending to …

…the sudden snowfall outside, or

…the spider on the ceiling, or

…the odd squeaking sound coming from the radiator,

then I’m not paying attention to…

…the Euler bridge problem, or

…the subjunctive mood, or

…the process for setting group norms.

We teachers wrestle with this problem every day. What can we do to help students pay attention so that they learn?

But Does It Work in Real-World Classrooms?

This urgent question has an obvious answer — and that obvious answer has obvious problems.

Obvious Answer: exercise. We’ve got lots of research showing that exercise enhances various neural processes essential to long-term memory formation.

And, we’ve got research — especially with younger children — that movement and exercise in class enhance attention.

Obvious Problems:

First, all that research doesn’t answer the essential question: “do movement and exercise help students learn?” We know they enhance attention. And we know that extra attention should boost learning. But: does it really work that way?

Second, most of that research on in-class exercise happens with younger students. What about older students? And, by “older,” I mean “older than 3rd grade.”

Wouldn’t it be great if someone looked at the effect of exercise on attention and learning in older students?

Good News, and More Good News

A research team in Canada has explored these questions. And, they did so with a helpfully clear and sensible research paradigm.

They invited college students (who are, indeed, older than 3rd graders) to watch a 50 minute lecture on psychology.

One group watched that lecture straight through, with no breaks.

A second group took 3 breaks, each one lasting five minutes. During those breaks, they played a fun video game (“Bejeweled”). That is: they DID take breaks, but they DIDN’T exercise during those breaks.

A third group also took 3 breaks, each one lasting five minutes. During those breaks, they did aerobic exercises: jumping jacks, high knees, etc.. Like the second group, they DID take breaks. Unlike the second group they DID exercise.

The results?

Lots o’ good news:

First: the exercise group were considerably more alert during the whole lecture than the other two groups. (That is: their heart rate was measurably higher.)

Second: the exercise group paid attention much better. They remained on-task about 75% of the time during the full lecture.

By way of contrast, the no-break group started at 60% on task, and fell to 40%. And the video-game group — who took a break but didn’t exercise — fell from 70% to 30%. YIKES.

Third: We care about alertness and attention only if they lead to more learning. Well: 48 hours later, the exercisers remembered more.

That is: they remembered 50% of the lecture, whereas the other two groups remembered 42%.  (50% doesn’t sound like a lot. But the point is: it’s considerably more than 42%.)

So, this study tells us that older students (like younger students) benefit from exercise during a lesson.

Specifically, they remain more alert, stay on task more, and learn more.

BOOM.

Final Thoughts

First: I think it’s helpful to see how each research study builds on previous ones. This study gives us important new information. But, it does so by drawing on and extending research done by earlier teams.

In educational psychology, no ONE study shows anything. Instead, each study builds incrementally on earlier ones — and creates a more interesting, more useful, more complex, even more contradictory picture.

Second: in this study, the students watched video lectures. Their experience wasn’t EXACTLY like online learning. But: it was an interesting relative of online learning.

Should we extrapolate from this study to encourage our online learners to move? That doesn’t sound crazy to me.

Third: One interesting question in this study. The students who took breaks — including those who exercised — took MORE TIME than those who didn’t. The “no break” group took 50 minutes; the “exercise break” group took 65.

So: they learned more — AND it took more time for them to do so. We have to be honest with ourselves about that finding.

My own view: I’d rather give up some class time for exercise if it means students attend and learn more. And, if that means I have to present less content, I’m okay with that exchange.

After all: it doesn’t matter if I teach material that students don’t learn. My job is to help them remember. Exercise breaks do just that.

What’s Better Than Caffeine (And Doesn’t Require Electrodes)?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
June-12-2020

What’s Better Than Caffeine (And Doesn’t Require Electrodes)?

Read More

Although we can’t improve our students’ working memory capacity, we can help them use the WM they’ve got more productively.

We have lots of teaching strategies to accomplish this goal. Well-designed visuals, for instance, divide WM demands between visual and auditory channels. In this way, they functionally reduce cognitive difficulties.

Our students could also do what our colleagues do: use caffeine to boost cognitive performance. When I have my morning tea, that jolt of caffeine doesn’t increase my working-memory capacity, but it helps me use it better. (In the short term, the cognitive result is the same.)

Is there anything else we can do that doesn’t involve drugs?

So Crazy That It Just Might Work

How about exercise?

If caffeine jolts me awake enough to help me use WM more effectively, couldn’t old-fashioned exercise have that same effect?

Researchers in Canada wanted to know just that. Is exercise as effective as caffeine in temporarily boosting WM performance?

To answer this question, they did all the things you’d want them to do. They had different groups of participants take WM tests before and after different combinations of caffeine and exercise.

They controlled for age. They controlled for the amount of caffeine that people usually drank. They controlled for the amount of exercise that people usually did. (If you want all the details, you can read ’em here.)

The result: sure enough, exercise temporarily boosts WM function as much as caffeine does.

And, it doesn’t lead to a post-caffeine crash they way caffeine use does. (Yes: the researchers did measure “caffeine withdrawal symptoms.”)

In this case, 20 minutes of moderately paced walking did the trick. In schools, I’m thinking recess, or PE, or even passing time between classes just might serve the same function.

If we want our students to think more clearly, let them move.

But Can’t We Zap the Brain with a Gizmo?

Given the importance of working memory for schools, you’d think someone would make a brain zap app.

Oh wait, they have. Lots of times.

My friend Scott MacClintic just sent me a link to this “biolelectric memory patch,” which claims what you expect it to claim. (They have in-house research to show that it works!)

Happily, the article Scott sent me includes many reasons to be skeptical of this gizmo. If you’d like another set of reasons, you can check out this article over at JSTOR daily.

The short version is: recent decades have see LOTS of products claiming to enhance WM capacity. With alarming consistency, those products just don’t work. Lumosity’s wallet is $2,000,000 lighter after a fine for misleading claims. (You read that right: two million dollars.)

So, who knows, maybe at last this will be the brain gizmo that works. If I had two million dollars, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Until we get better research, we’ve got two proven strategies to help students use working memory well: skillful teaching, and exercise.

“The” Effect of “Exercise” on “the Brain”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-15-2020

“The” Effect of “Exercise” on “the Brain”

Read More

A month ago, I wrote about a Twitter feud focusing on exercise during learning.

When a PE teacher posted a video of his students reading on exer-cycles, edu-Twitter irrupted with champions (“love it!”) and critics (“bonkers!”).

My response at the time was:

First: I rather suspect that exercise during learning will distract students from their reading; however,

Second: we don’t have research on this specific question; and

Third: in the absence of research, it’s probably good for PE teachers to be experimenting in this realm.

In other words: Edu-Twitter, relax.

Today’s Update

Since that mini-controversy, I’ve stumbled across an intriguing research addendum.

Researchers in Germany wanted to know: how does exercise affect the brain. More specifically, does a difference in intensity level matter?

That is: if I exercise 35% below lactate threshold, will that influence brain connectivity differently than if I exercise 20% above that threshold? (“Lactate threshold” measures intensity of exercise; the specifics aren’t super important here.)

To answer that question, they had had about 2 dozen men exercise at those different levels on different days.

The specific results quickly turn into a tornado of acronyms. But, briefly summarized, the researchers found that:

Low intensity exercise enhanced connectivity in networks that help process cognitive and attentional functions, while

High intensity exercise enhanced connectivity in networks that help process emotional responses.

And surprisingly (to me), high intensity exercise also diminished connectivity in networks that process motor coordination.

In other words, “exercise” does not have “an” effect on “the brain.”

Instead, different kinds of exercise have distinct effects on particular brain regions and networks.

Core Conclusions

First: in the short term, different exercise intensities may influence brain regions differently.

Second: that “short term” caveat is important. Notice for instance that high intensity exercise muddles motor coordination networks. Why would that be? The study’s authors suggest it indicates temporary “motor fatigue.”

That is: exercise doesn’t make us worse at motor coordination over the long term — that would be bizarre. Instead, it temporarily tires us out.  Presumably, motor coordination bounces back after we stop exercising.

So, too, we might be tempted to enhance cognitive function with low-intensity exercise. But, just as the motor-fatigue effect was temporary, so too the cognitive-function effect might be temporary.

Third: back to those readers on bicycles. I don’t think this research applies directly to that classroom experiment. (Although, if low-intensity exercise really improves cognitive function — even temporarily — that finding makes those bikes somewhat more appealing. That is: low-intensity exer-cycling might improve the students’ cognition and focus while they read.)

Instead, I think it highlights the importance of patience and specificity. Until we have more research on this specific point, I don’t think we have nearly enough reason to cry either “bravo!” or “bonkers!”

Instead, let’s gather more data. And, in the meanwhile, we can encourage one another in reasonable classroom experiments.

And yes, I do mean even PE class experiments including exer-cycles.

Should Students Exercise DURING Learning? A Twitter Debate Rages…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
January-14-2020

Should Students Exercise DURING Learning? A Twitter Debate Rages…

Read More

Edu-Twitter loves a good battle, and one irrupted just this week.

A teacher posted a video of students reading while peddling exercise bikes.

Comments roared in thick and fast.

Several people responded with “AWESOME” or “<3 this” or some other emoji for upbeat enthusiasm. But — at least in my Twitter feed — the angry skeptics were as scathing as the early fans were enthusiastic. (The word “bonkers” showed up frequently.)

Twitter doesn’t allow space for nuance (one reason I still write thousand word blog posts). In this case, I think, the twitter “debate” would have been greatly improved by context. In fact, it really needed two distinct categories of context.

Context, Part I: The Teacher*

Skeptics who responded to this post — reasonably enough — worried that reading while exercising might interfere with the students’ ability to do either thing well. (I’ll explore this concern in the next section.)

However, I didn’t see any commentary that focused on this important fact: the teacher who created this initiative is a physical education teacher. That is: it’s his job to think about and promote his students’ physical health.

In fact, he has quite a history of trying out imaginative approaches to that goal.

He’s got students playing drums with glow-in-the-dark drumsticks. (And, yes: they’re playing drums in the dark.) He’s got them doing fun obstacle courses. He’s got them kicking field-goals in the gym…by projecting goal-posts on the gym’s upper wall! If nothing else, you know his students will enjoy his class.

And, he cites lots o’ research showing the benefits of aerobic exercise for long-term memory formation. (Again, I’ll talk about this research below.)

So: we might quite reasonably worry that this biking-while-reading initiative won’t have the effect that the PE teacher wants it to. At the same time, any teacher who experiments as frequently as this teacher does will, no doubt, try some things that don’t work along the way.

But, heaven knows, I try plenty of things that don’t work in my teaching — that’s simply the price of being committed to trying new things.

And — again — this guy teaches PE. In my view, he SHOULD be trying to find ways to get more physical activity into his students’ daily schedules. Even if exercise bikes aren’t exactly the right answer, he’s questing in the right direction.

Context, Part II: The Research on Exercise and Learning

So, what does research say about exercise and learning?

In the first place, we can state with real confidence that physical fitness improves learning. We can measure this effect in many ways. But, for instance, if I increase my fitness — trust me, I’m trying! — research strongly suggests I’ll improve several cognitive functions: attention, reaction time, and so forth.

We also know a lot about the neuro-biological mechanisms. For instance: exercise boosts production of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). And, BDNF does lots of splendid things to improve synapse formation.

To explore this general pool of research, you can start with John Ratey’s book Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain. It’s more than a decade old now, but still a great introduction to this field.

If you’d like to watch a super-upbeat neuroscience+exercise Ted Talk, click here.

Research on Exercise DURING Learning

But, in the second place, can we conclude that exercise during learning provides benefits, above and beyond the exercise itself? I asked Dr. Steve Most, whose lab has done some really interesting work on exercise and cognition. (You can follow him on Twitter: @SBMost.)

Here’s part of an email Dr. Most sent me:

Most of the research cited [by the teacher who posted the video] seems to do with links between general exercise/fitness and cognition. I think that’s a pretty well established link, but most of it doesn’t say anything about exercise during learning…

I’m not really convinced. One could even imagine that the scenario in the clip entails divided attention (depending on how much attention kids pay to the exercise itself), in which case it could be counter-productive.

I am aware of a study here and there that suggests that mild exercise during study can increase memory, but I don’t think the findings rise to the level of a consistent body of evidence (there may even be findings here and there of the opposite effect).

Like many Twitter objectors, Dr. Most worries that the bike riding might distract from attention to the reading.

At the same time, he added an important caveat. The hypothesis that bicycle exercise during reading harms learning is plausible but also insufficiently tested.

That is, when I speculated to him that the exercise bikes would most likely divide the students’ attention and interfere with their learning, I was speculating as much as the teacher who hoped it would improve their learning. 

My speculation was reasonable, given evidence on the fragility of attention. But so too were the PE teacher’s hopes, given evidence about physical fitness and learning.

And, to be clear, we don’t have lots of research on this precise question, but we do have some. This study and this study both found that moderate-to-vigorous exercise during lessons improved learning.

There are important differences between those research paradigms and the exercise bikes used in the video. (The exercises themselves reinforced the concepts being learned.)  And, some of the research cited by the teacher is conspicuously light-weight. (No, “crossing the three mid-lines” doesn’t do anything special for your brain. It really doesn’t.)

But to me, at least, the tentative evidence we have suggest that the teacher’s hopes were far from “bonkers.”

I am, to be clear, skeptical myself. But I do think the idea worthy of study, for a number of reasons.

To Sum Up

First: we know quite confidently that exercise and fitness generally improve learning.

Second: we don’t have much research on the more specific question of exercise during learning. And, the research we do have doesn’t provide a consistent pattern of results.

That is: reading while riding an exercise bike might improve understanding, or impede it, or have no effect. We just don’t have enough research to say with Twitterable confidence.

Third: that being true, I think we should encourage teachers — especially PE teachers — to try plausible (if unproven) hypotheses in their classrooms. If they have plans in place to gather data, they can offer us real insight into new teaching possibilities.

Fourth: Twitter battles — especially those that devolve to emojis and insults — benefit from context. If you see a hot debate, look beyond it for research to guide your understanding.

 

*At the time that I’m writing this post (January 9), the teacher who posted the video has taken it down from twitter. I’m assuming (but I do not know) that the strong negative reaction prompted him to do so.

For that reason, I am not identifying him in this post, and am not linking to his account. Basically, I’m inferring a request for some degree of peace and privacy in his decision to take the video down.

I have reached out to the teacher to get his perspective on a) the goals of the initiative, and b) his students’ response to it. If I hear from him, I’ll write a follow-up post.

Praising Researchers, Despite Our Disagreements
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-28-2019

Praising Researchers, Despite Our Disagreements

Read More

This blog often critiques the hype around “brain training.” Whether Lumosity or Tom Brady‘s “brain speed” promises, we’ve seen time and again that they just don’t hold water.

Although I stand behind these critiques, I do want to pause and praise the determined researchers working in this field.

Although, as far as I can see, we just don’t have good research suggesting that brain training works*, it will be an AWESOME accomplishment if it someday comes to pass.

A Case In Point

I’ve just read a study that pursues this hypothesis: perhaps brain training doesn’t succeed because the training paradigms we’ve studied do only one thing.

So, a program to improve working memory might include cognitively demanding exercises, but nothing else. Or, brain stimulation, but nothing else. Or, physical exercise, but nothing else.

What would happen if you combined all three?

To test this question, Ward & Co. ran a remarkably complex study including 518 participants in 5 different research conditions. Some did cognitive exercises. Some also did physical exercises. And some also added neural stimulation.

The study even included TWO control groups.

And, each group participated in dozens of sessions of these trainings.

No matter the results, you have to be impressed with the determination (and organization) that goes into such a complex project.

Okay, but What Were The Results?

Sadly, not much. This study didn’t find that training results transferred to new tasks — which is the main reason we’d care about positive findings in the first place.

We might be inclined to think that the study “didn’t succeed.” That conclusion, however, misses the bigger point. The researchers pursued an entirely plausibly hypothesis…and found that their evidence didn’t support it.

That is: they learned something highly useful, that other researchers might draw on in their own work.

Someday — we fervently hope — researchers will find the right combination to succeed in this task. Those who do so will have relied heavily on all the seemingly unsuccessful attempts that preceded them.

__________

* To be clear: the phrase “brain training” means “training core cognitive capacities, like working memory.”

From a different perspective, teaching itself is a form of brain training. When we teach our students, brains that once could not do something now can do that something.

Brains change all the time. “Brain training” aims for something grander. And, we haven’t yet figured out how to do it.

Healthy Snacks After Exercise? Depends on the Timing…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-16-2019

Healthy Snacks After Exercise? Depends on the Timing…

Read More

If you saw Roy Baumeister at the 2015 Learning and the Brain conference in Boston, you remember his presentation on self-control.

Of course, teachers care A LOT about self-control.

We need our students to control their behavior. (“Do not use the bunsen burner to light your backpack on fire,” my 6th grade science teacher said to me. Often.)

And, we need them to control their cognitive processes. (“When balancing chemical equations, start by identifying the elements.”)

Baumeister found, among other fascinating things, that both kinds of self-control “drain the same reservoir.”

That is: if I use up some self-control resisting the temptation to climb the jungle gym, I have less self-control left over to process the steps involved in subtracting two-digit numbers. (Baumeister’s book Willpower, written with John Tierney, explains his research in helpful detail.)

Replication Controversy

As the field of psychology wrestles with the “replication crisis,” Baumeister’s conclusions have come under question.

Some researchers haven’t gotten the same results when they run self-control experiments. Some question the research field in general. (For instance: terms like “self-control” are notoriously hard to define.)

This question matters to us. If Baumeister’s theories don’t hold water, then it’s unlikely the self-control solutions he proposes will help very much.

So, to take only the most recent example, John Medina’s Attack of the Teenage Brain devotes several chapters to helping adolescents develop executive functions — such as self-control.

If the research that Medina cites can’t be trusted…we might be back to square one.

Latest News

I’ve just found some pertinent research in an unlikely field: exercise and nutrition.

Researcher Christopher Gustafson and Co. asked visitors at a local gym to wear an accelerometer, purportedly so they could “keep track of relevant exercise data.” As a reward for participating, they were given a free snack after their workout.

In fact, the “accelerometer data” story masked the real interest of the study: participants’ snack choice.

All participants chose between a brownie and an apple. Some got the choice before they exercised; some after. Did the timing of the choice matter?

If Baumeister’s theory holds up, we would expect a difference between these two groups. Here’s why…

Self-Control, Snacks, and Exercise

Because apples are a healthier snack than brownies, we know we ought to choose them. But, for most of us, brownies taste a lot better. And so, we must use self-control to make that choice.

Likewise, we know that exercise is good for us. But, we rarely want to do it — and so that choice also takes self-control.

If I make the snack choice before exercise, my self-control reservoir remains relatively full. As a result, I’m likelier to make the “right” choice.

But, if I select my snack as I towel off after exercise, I’ve probably drained that reservoir considerably. So, I’ve got less willpower left. And I’m likelier to give into chocolatey temptation.

Is that what Gustafson found? Indeed he did.

In fact, 17% fewer people chose the apple, and 6% more chose the brownie. (The rest turned down a snack altogether.)

In other words: this study supports Baumeister, and gives us increased confidence in the research suggestions that flow from it.

What are some of those suggestions? You can start with an intriguing one here.

Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
October-02-2018

Can Quick Exercise Breaks Energize Young Students?

Read More

We know that our students spend too much time sitting down. They’re antsy and unhappy, and — increasingly — overweight. Wouldn’t it be great if we could add even quick exercise breaks into the class day?

quick exercise

Of course, we have lots of reasons to be skeptical about this possibility.

Even if we get them to move more in class, they might just be more sedentary later in the day.

If they burn more calories at school, they might eat more later on.

And: let’s be practical. If we get our students up and moving around, it might take FOREVER to get them settled back down again.

Which is to say: if they move more, they might learn less.

Quick Exercise Breaks: The Research

A research team has been exploring each of these questions, and they’ve got LOTS of good news.

In brief, almost  all of these fears are groundless.

We were right to be skeptical, right to ask all those questions. But the answers turn out to be: “not to worry!”

For example: students who get extra exercise in class don’t spend more time on the couch later on.

They don’t eat more either.

They plain old feel better.

And — here’s some great news: they get back to work in about 30 seconds. (They learn the same amount as their sedentary peers, by the way.)

The Bad News?

Honestly, there’s just not much bad news here. The worst researchers could report is that they didn’t quite meet their goals.

They wanted teachers to do ten quick exercise breaks, but they averaged only five.

Given all the other good news, I’m thinking we can live with this.

By the way: we might have hoped that the exercise would help students learn — not just fail to impede learning.

Research into that question is complex. Here’s a link to a recent article on the subject.

In the meanwhile: here’s a fun video on the Michigan research project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq5xVgClIsw

Can a Quick Bicycle Ride Help You Learn Better?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-17-2018

Can a Quick Bicycle Ride Help You Learn Better?

Read More

Can exercise improve memory?

exercise and memoryThat fascinating question has inspired a lot of research. The answer you get often depends quite specifically on the kind of exercise, and the kind of memory, that you study.

For example, a recent study asks this question:

If you exercise after you learn a new motor skill, do you remember that new skill better?

More specifically, if you ride a bike for 20 minutes, does that help?

(The new motor skill is a little tricky to describe. Basically, you use a joystick to make your cursor follow an irregularly moving line.)

Exercise and Memory: Promising Results

Marc Roig and colleagues had 18-35 years do just that. One group rode a stationary bike for 20 minutes before they learned the joystick task. Another group exercised after. And the control group rested quietly for 20 minutes.

What difference did that make?

Helpfully, Roig & Co. retested these participants 3 times: an hour later, a day later, and — marvelously — a week later.

(Many researchers retest participants after an hour or two. That time gap is interesting, but it hardly feels like learning…)

Sure enough: after 7 days, participants who exercised — either before or after — did better on the task than those who didn’t exercise at all.

And, those who exercised AFTER did better than those who exercised BEFORE.

So: we’ve got good reason to think that aerobic exercise after learning a motor skill helps you remember that new skill.

Exercise and Memory: Important Limitations

As noted at the top of this post: the answer to the “exercise and memory” question depends on the specific exercise, and the specific kind of memory.

This study looked narrowly at a visuo-motor task.

We would like to say: “Hey! Let’s have students do jumping jacks after they learn a new geometry theorem. After all: exercise helps learning!”

Unfortunately, we don’t have consistent research showing that exercise directly improves this kind of academic learning.

For example, in one of my favorite studies, Steven Most & Co. found contradictory results when they tested declarative learning and exercise. In his 4 studies: half of the time, that exercise benefited women but not men. Half of the time, it didn’t benefit either women or men.

(I like this study so much because Most and his team are so scrupulous in making their contradictory results clear.)

At the same time, we should remember: brains are a part of the body. We’ve got LOTS of research showing that the habit of exercise is good for the brain, and helps students learn.

If you’re especially interested in this topic, I recommend John Ratey’s book Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain. (It’s not so revolutionary or new anymore, but it’s an easy and persuasive read.)

Exercise and Learning
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
October-10-2017

Exercise and Learning

Read More

AdobeStock_68395807_Credit

Does even a short bout of exercise immediately after learning help form long-term memories?

A recent article, published by Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, suggests intriguing—even surprising—answers to this question.

From a different perspective, this article also offers useful insights into the way that psychologists think and work

Specifically, it helps answer a second question: what should researchers do when their data are inconsistent?

The Study

Steven Most and colleagues wondered if even 5 minutes of exercise immediately after learning would increase the exerciser’s memory of that information.

To test this question, Most had students study pairs of names and faces, and then do five minutes of exercise. (They stepped on and off a low platform.) He then tested their memory of those name/face pairs the following day, and compared their performance to two control groups.

Compared to one control group which did not exercise, these steppers remembered more words.

Similarly, compared to another control group which did exercise before they learned the name/face pairs, these steppers remembered more words.

But here’s the surprise. On average, the exercising men in the study remembered slightly fewer pairs than the non-exercising men. But the exercising women remembered more than twice as many pairs as their non-exercising female peers.

This article opened with a question: does a short bout of exercise immediately after learning help form long-term memories?

The answer: it certainly seems to, but only for women.

Psychologists at Work

Although a lot of work goes into this kind of study, psychologists are rarely satisfied to examine a question just once. When they get these results—especially such interesting results—they’re inclined to repeat their study with slight variations.

They are, in effect, trying to prove themselves wrong. Or, at least, trying to discover the limits outside of which their findings aren’t true.

So, Most et. al. repeated their study. This time, instead of testing the students the following day, they tested them later the same day.

The results? They arrived at the same major findings. Although the women’s increase wasn’t so dramatic post exercise (they remembered almost twice as many name/face pairs, not more than twice as many name/face pairs), post-study exercisers still remembered more pairs than pre-study exercisers, and than non-exercisers.

Brace Yourself

Up to this point, Most’s team had gotten the same dramatic answer twice. What does a good psychologist do?

Most repeated the study again—this time using name/shape pairs instead of name/face pairs.

The results? Nada.

This time, none of the groups should significant differences at all. No differences between the pre- and post-study exercisers. No differences between the exercisers and non-exercisers. No meaningful gender differences. Bupkis.

So, you know what happens next: they performed their research paradigm a 4th time. This version was practically identical to the first; they simply made a slight change to the non-exercise task. (Crucially, Most’s team went back to name/face pairs.)

The results?

Drum roll please…

Basically, a nothingburger.

As was true in study #3 — but contrary to studies #1 and #2 — study #4 showed no statistically significant differences. As the authors write

“Examining the data only from the women, those in the exercise group exhibited somewhat better memory than those in the non-exercise group, but this [difference] fell short of significance.”

In the world of psychology, if a result falls short of statistical significance, you can’t make strong claims about your findings.

Psychologists at Work, Part II

Imagine that you’re a professional psychologist. You’ve spent months—probably years—running these studies. Some of your results—studies #1 and #2—are strong and compelling. Others—#3 and #4—don’t get you very far.

What do you do with this muddle?

As we asked at the top of this article: what should researchers do when their data are inconsistent?

The answer is: You publish it. You publish it all.

You say: look, we ran our studies and came up with a confusing and interesting collection of results. Here you go, world, see what you make of them.

You do not hide it. You do not, for example, publish studies #1 and #2 and pretend that #3 and #4 didn’t happen. You publish it all.

In fact, Most and colleagues went further. They created a handy graph (on page 11) making this inconsistency extremely clear. It’s easy to see that, for men, the short bout of exercise didn’t make much of a difference in any of the studies. For women, on the other hand, the exercise made a big difference in the first study, a modest difference in the second, and practically none in the 3rd and 4th.

Fig. 4 Means and 95% confidence intervals for each experiment indicating how many more paired associations were correctly recalled among female and male participants when the post-learning activity was exercise, relative to the non-exercise post-learning activity. For experiment 3, error bars reflect a repeated measures design, whereas those for the other experiments reflect independent measures designs. A meta-analysis across these experiments indicated that, among the female participants and with 95% confidence, 5 minutes of post-learning exercise increased memory for paired association by 0.40 to 4.63 items. Image from Most, S. B., Kennedy, B. L., & Petras, E. A. (2017). Evidence for improved memory from 5 minutes of immediate, post-encoding exercise among women. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 33.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hats Off

Before I started attending Learning and the Brain conferences, I had been an English and Theater teacher for years. My undergraduate degree is in Medieval History and Literature; I have an MA (and half of a PhD) in English. I am, in other words, historically a Humanities kind of guy.

But I have to say, this article exemplifies some of the many reasons that I have grown to admire a scientist’s approach to teaching and learning.

Most and his colleagues, Briana Kennedy and Edgar Petras, not only tried to prove themselves wrong, they went out of their way to show the results when they partially succeeded in doing so.

Yes, there’s a lot of talk about a “replication crisis” in psychology. Yes, nobody knows what a p-value really means, and why .05 is the chosen threshold.

But at the end of the day, researchers like Most, Kennedy, and Petras are doing hard, fascinating, and helpful work—and they’re being remarkably straightforward with others about the complexity of their findings.

We should all admire this article. And me: I’m going to work out…