Here’s a provocative claim for you: “musicians have better memories than non-musicians.”
But, do we have research to support that claim?
According to a meta-analysis published back in October of 2017, the answer is: “mostly yes.”
What do we know about musician memory?
Reseachers in Padua, Italy examined 29 different memory studies, sorting them into categories of long-term, short-term, and working memory.
In all three categories, musician memory averaged higher on various tests than non-musician memory. (They defined “musician” as someone who had enrolled in a conservatory or music school, and “non-musician” as someone who had little musical training.)
The effect size was “small” for long-term memory, and “moderate” for short-term and working memory.
(For the stats pros in the house, Hedges’s g was 0.29 for LTM, 0.57 for STM, and 0.56 for WM.)
The Plot Thickens
Of course, the story gets more complex. After all, we have different ways of testing these memory skills.
So, for example, we might test people on their ability to remember musical tones. In that case, it’s not at all surprising that musicians have better memory.
But when we test their verbal ability, or their visuo-spatial ability, what do we find?
In long-term memory, it’s all the same. Musicians consistently have (slightly) higher scores than non-musicians.
For short-term memory and working memory, these tests matter. In verbal tests, musicians’ STM and WM still average higher, but not as much as overall. In visuo-spatial tests, the differences basically vanishes.
How to explain these differences?
It’s not surprising that music training might help with verbal capacities. Our ability to process and read language does depend significantly on our ability to process tone and rhythm.
However, music isn’t so directly related to processing of spatial information, and so might not provide enough training to make a difference.
How do we interpret these differences?
Before we conclude that music training causes better memory, we should consider an alternative explanation. Perhaps music requires better memory, and so only those with very good memory skills ever enroll in a conservatory.
If that explanation isn’t true, then we arrive at a surprising conclusion: just maybe it IS possible to train working memory.
Regular readers of this blog know that there’s a lot of skepticism about WM training programs. They’re often expensive and time consuming, and don’t consistently produce results outside of the psychology lab.
It would be thrilling to know that music lessons not only help people make music, but also boost this essential cognitive capacity.
At the same time, we should keep two cautions in mind.
First: it takes A LOT of music training to get into conservatory. People with WM difficulties just might not have that much extra time.
Second: this study doesn’t show that music training leads to greater learning of, say, math and reading. When we worry about students’ working memory, we typically want them to make greater progress in disciplines such as these.
Last Notes
These cautions aside, this study seems like wonderful news. Creating music is good for the soul. And, studying music just might be good for our memory systems as well.
Because working memory is so important for learning, and because human working memory capacity isn’t as large as we wish it were, we would LOVE to be able to increase it.
If we could make working memory bigger, then all sorts of complex cognitive tasks–comparing historical figures, multiplying multi-digit numbers, parsing complex sentences, coding useful programs–would just be easier.
Various researchers and companies have touted exercises and games to embiggen working memory. However, many scholars are quite skeptical about such activities.
Except in unusual circumstances (say, a particular kind of brain injury, or a very long gap in schooling), we simply haven’t had much luck in artificially boosting WM.
Recently I’ve been reading more and more about an alternate approach to cognitive enhancement: transcranial direct-current stimulation. That’s a fancy way of saying: applying electricity to the brain through the skull. (Safely.)
Although the ideas sounds really cool in a sci-fi kind of way, this recent study dampens the hype. The details of the study, and the statistical analysis, are quite complex.
The short version is: don’t sign up to get zapped any time soon.
Given that working memory training programs tend to be VERY expensive and VERY time consuming, I advise skeptical caution before going that route.
When he first sees Jaws, Roy Scheider tells Robert Shaw that they’ll need a bigger boat. If we want to enhance working memory, we’re going to need a better technology.
For the time being, the best working-memory enhancer is what it’s always been: school.
You’d like an 8 page summary of Cognitive Load Theory, written in plain English for teachers? You’d like three pages of pertinent sources?
Click here for a handy report from the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (That’s not a typo; the Centre is in New South Wales, Australia.)
For example: you might check out the “expertise reversal effect” described on page 7; you’ll gain a whole new perspective on worked examples.
Now that I’ve got your attention: what effect does the location of your cell phone have on your attention?
Researchers have recently found some predictable answers to that question–as well as some rather surprising ones. And, their answers may help us think about cell phones in classrooms.
The Study
Adrian Ward and Co. wanted to learn more about the “mere presence” of students’ cellphones.
That is: they weren’t asking if talking on the phone distracts drivers (it does), or if a ringing phone distracts that phone’s owner (it does), or even if a text-message buzz distracts the textee (it does).
Instead, they were asking if your phone lying silently on the desk in front of you distracts you–even if its not ringing or buzzing.
Even if you’re NOT CONSCIOUSLY THINKING ABOUT IT.
So they gathered several hundred college students and had them complete tests that measure various cognitive functions.
The first group of students left all their stuff–including phones–in another room. (That’s standard procedure during such research.)
The second group brought their phones with them “for use later in the study.” After silencing the phones (no ringing, no buzzing), they were told to put them wherever they usually keep them. Roughly half kept them in a pocket; the other half kept them in a nearby bag.
The third group brought phones along, and were instructed to put them in a marked place on the desk in front of them. (These phones were also silenced.)
Did the proximity of the phone matter?
The Expected Results
As is so often true, the answer to that question depends on the measurement we use.
When the researchers measured the students’ working memory capacity, they found that a cell phone on the desk reduced this essential cognitive function.
Specifically, students who left phones in their bags in another room averaged about a 33 on an OSpan test. (It measures working memory–the specifics aren’t important here.) Those who had cell phones on their desks scored roughly 28.5. (For the stats pros here, the p value was .007.)
If you attend Learning and the Brain conferences, or read this blog regularly, you know that working memory is ESSENTIAL for academic learning. It allows us to hold on to bits of information and recombine them into new patterns; of course, that’s what learning is.
So, if the “mere presence” of a cell phone is reducing working memory, it’s doing real harm to our students.
By the way, the students who had their phones on their desks said that they weren’t thinking about them (any more than the other students), and didn’t predict that their phones would distract them (any more than the other students).
So, our students might TELL US that their phones don’t interfere with their cognition. They might not even be conscious of this effect. But, that interference is happening all the same.
The UNEXPECTED Results
Few teachers, I imagine, are surprised to learn that a nearby cell phone makes it hard to think.
What effect does that phone have on the ability to pay attention?
To answer this question, researchers used a “go/no-go” test. Students watched a computer screen that flashed numbers on it. Whenever they saw a 6, they pressed the letter J on the keyboard. They ignored all the other numbers.
(The researchers didn’t go into specifics here, so I’ve described a typical kind of “go/no-go” task. Their version might have been a bit different.)
To do well on this task, you have to focus carefully: that is, you have to pay attention. Researchers can tell how good you are at paying attention by measuring the number of mistakes you make, and your reaction time. Presumably, the slower you are to react, the less attention you’re paying.
So, how much difference did the cell phone on the desk make? How much slower were the students who had the phone on the desk, compared to those whose phones were in the other room?
Nope. Sorry. No difference.
Or, to be precise, the students who had the phone on the desk reacted in 0.366 seconds, whereas those whose phones were elsewhere reacted in 0.363 seconds. As you can imagine, a difference of 0.003 seconds just isn’t enough to worry about. (Stats team: the p value was >.35.)
Explaining the Unexpected
Ward’s results here are, I think, quite counter-intuitive. We would expect that the mere presence of the phone would interfere with working memory because it distracted the students: that is, because it interfered with their attention.
These results paint a more complicated picture.
The explanation can get technical quickly. Two key insights help understand these results.
Key Insight #1: Attention isn’t just one thing. It has different parts to it.
One part of my attentional system brings information into my brain. I am, at this moment, focusing on my computer screen, Ward’s article, my keyboard, and my own thoughts. Sensory information from these parts of my world are entering my conscious mind.
Another part of my attentional system screens information out of my brain. I am, at this moment, trying not to notice the bubble-and-hum of my cats’ water gizmo, or my cat’s adorable grooming (why is his leg stuck up in the air like that?)–or, really, anything about my cats. Sensory information from those parts of my world are not (I hope) entering my conscious thought.
The attention test that Ward & Co. used measured the first part of attention. That is, the go/no-go task checks to see if the right information is getting in. And, in this case, the right information was getting in, even when a cell phone was nearby.
Key Insight #2: Working Memory INCLUDES the second kind of attention.
In other words, we use working memory to keep out adorable cat behavior–and other things we don’t want to distract our conscious minds. Other things such as–for example–cell phones.
The nearby phone doesn’t interfere with the first part of attention, and so the correct information gets into student brains. For this reason, students do just fine on Ward’s “attention” test.
However, the nearby phone does make it hard to filter information out. It’s bothering the second part of attention–which is a part of working memory. For this reason, students do badly on Ward’s “working memory” test.
Classroom Implications
Ward’s research, I think, gives us some clear pointers about cell phones in classrooms: the farther away the better.
Specifically, it contradicts some teaching advice I’d gotten a few years ago. Some have advised me that students should silence their phones and put them on the desk in front of them. The goal of this strategy: teachers can be sure that students aren’t subtly checking their phones under their desks.
While, clearly, it’s beneficial to silence phones, we now know that their “mere presence” on the desk interferes with working memory.
In brief, we need another solution.
(Sadly, Ward doesn’t tell us what that solution is. But she warns us away from this phone-on-the-desk strategy.)
Implications for Brain Science in the Classroom
Teachers LOVE learning about psychology and neuroscience research because it can offer such helpful and clarifying guidance for good teaching.
(I should know: I’ve spent the last ten years using such research to be a better teacher.)
At the same time, we teachers occasionally stumble into studies like this one where psychology gives us results that seem strange–even impossible.
After all: how can you tell me that cell phones don’t interfere with our students’ attention? And, if they don’t interfere with attention, how can they possibly interfere with something like working memory?
The answer–as described above–is that psychologists think of attention as having multiple parts, and one of those parts overlaps with working memory. Because psychologists define the word “attention” one way and we teachers use it a different way, research like this is potentially very puzzling.
(You can imagine our students reading this study and crowing: “See! Cell phones have NO EFFECT on attention! “)
For this reason, we need to be especially careful when we enter into the world of brain science. Definitions of basic words (“attention,” “transfer,” “significant”) might trip us up.
And so, you’re wise to be attending Learning and the Brain conferences, and to be consulting with experts who know how to read such studies and make sense of them.
In brief: teachers should be modest when we try to interpret primary research in neuroscience and psychology. These fields are so complicated that we just might misunderstand even basic terms.
By the way, the same point holds in reverse. Neuroscientists and psychologists should be modest when telling us how to teach. Our work is so complicated that they just might misunderstand even basic classroom work.
This mutual modesty is–I believe–the basis of our field. We all come together to learn from and collaborate with each other. Our students will benefit from this complex and essential collaboration.
Ok: you’ve taught your students a particular topic, and you’ve provided them with lots of ways to review and practice for the upcoming test. But, will they do so?
How can you ensure that they prepare most effectively?
Patricia Chen’s research team studied a surprisingly simple answer to this question. You might help your students study by asking them to think about the approaches that they will use–and, to make specific plans.
Chen & Co. asked students to follow a four step process:
Step 1: students wrote about the kind of questions they expected on the test.
Step 2: they then chose the resources they wanted to use to prepare for those questions. The checklist from which they chose included 15 options, such as “go over practice exam questions,” “go to professor’s office hours,” and “work with a peer study group.”
Step 3: they wrote why and how they thought each of the resources they selected might be helpful.
Step 4: they made specific and realistic plans about where and when they would use those resources.
Compared to a control group–who were simply reminded that they should study for the upcoming exam–students in this group averaged 1/3 of a letter grade higher.
For example, students in the control group had an average class grade of 79.23. Those who went through these 4 steps had an average grade of 83.44.
That’s a lot of extra learning from asking four basic questions.
What Should We Do?
Chen’s research team worked with college students studying statistics. Do their conclusions apply to–say–5th graders studying history? Or, 10th graders learning chemistry?
As is so often the case, individual teachers will make this judgment call on their own. Now that you’ve got a good study suggesting that this method might work, you can think over your own teaching world–your students, your curriculum, your approach to teaching–and see if this technique fits.
In case you decide to do so, I will offer three additional suggestions.
First: check out Gollwizer’s work on “implementation intentions.” His idea overlaps with Chen’s work, and would pair with it nicely.
Second: I’m a little concerned that Chen’s list of proposed study strategies included two options we know don’t help–reviewing notes and rereading the text. (If my skepticism about those two methods surprises you, check out Ian Kelleher’s post here.) Your list of study strategies should NOT include those suggestions.
Third: as always, keep working memory limitations in mind. The kind of meta-cognition that Chen outlines can clearly benefit students, but it also might overwhelm their ability to keep many ideas in mind at the same time.
However, if we can prevent working memory overload, this strategy just might help bridge the gap between “I taught it” and “they learned it.” As is so often the case, a key plank in that bridge is: asking students to think just a little bit more..
How should we manage working memory limitations in the classroom?
Furtheredogogy has a handy post about Cognitive Load Theory, which is basically a fancy way of saying “taking care of our students’ working memory capacity.”
Notice, btw, that the author suggests worked examples as a working-memory friendly alternative to project-based learning–which can all to often overwhelm students’ cognitive resources.
Some days I wonder if I have linked to too many articles debunking claims about “brain training games.” Invariably, as soon as this thought crosses my mind, I hear another advertisement for Lumosity, and I realize that I haven’t linked to debunking articles often enough.
So, as my public service for today, here’s another study that makes this point:
People who practiced games that were supposed to improve working memory got better at the games, but they didn’t get better at other working memory tasks.
Put another way: you might decide to spend $15 a month for the fun of playing such games. But, don’t do so because you think they’ll help your cognitive functioning. So far, we just don’t have good evidence that they do.
(Just as a reminder: Lumosity was fined $ 2,000,000 for deceptive advertising.)
L&tB bloggers frequently write about working memory — and with good reason. This cognitive capacity, which allows students to reorganize and combine pieces information into some new conceptual structure, is vital to all academic learning.
And: we don’t have very much of it.
For example: our grade school students may know the letters C, A, and T. But, putting letters together to form the word “cat” can be a challenge for new readers. After all, that new combination is a working memory task.
Putting those letters together with another letter to make the word “catch” — well, that cognitive effort can bring the whole mental exercise to a halt. (Psychologists speak of “catastrophic failure,” an apt and vivid phrase.)
When teachers learn about the importance of working memory and the limitations of working memory, we often ask an obvious question: what can we do to make working memory bigger?
How to Embiggen Working Memory
This simple question has a surprisingly complicated set of answers.
The first thing to do: wait. Our students’ working memory is getting bigger as they age. We don’t need to do anything special. (Here is a study by Susan Gathercole showing how working memory increases from ages 4-15.)
The second thing to do: watch researchers argue.
Some scholars believe that working memory training does increase its capacity; some companies sell products that claim to do just that.
For the most part, however, the field is quite skeptical. A recent meta-analysis (here) and several classroom studies (here and here) find that working memory training just doesn’t have the effect we’d like it to. And, of course, that ineffective training takes up valuable time and scarce money.
As I read the field, more scholars are skeptics than believers.
Today’s Headline
All that information is important background for a headline I saw recently: “Buzzing the Brain with Electricity Can Boost Working Memory.” (Link here.)
According to this study, weak electrical stimulation to the middle frontal gyrus and the inferior parietal lobule (not joking) temporarily synchronizes theta waves (obvi), and thereby enhances WM function.
Aha! At last! A solution!
When our students struggle with a working memory task, now we just give them a helpful little ZAP, and they’ll be reading like the Dickens. (Or: solving complex math problems. Or: analyzing Sethe’s motivation. Or: elucidating the parallels between US wars in Korea and Vietnam.)
In other words: all those skeptics can now become believers, as working memory problems become a thing of the past.
Beyond the Headline
Or, maybe not yet a thing of the past.
First, it’s always important to remember that science works incrementally. This study is only one study, offering initial testing of a hypothesis.
Second, it’s quite a small study. We’ll need to test this idea many, many more times with many, MANY more people.
Third–and this is my key point–the authors of the study do not even suggest that this technique has classroom uses. Instead, to quote from the Neuroscience News article, “[t]he hope is that the approach could one day be used to bypass damaged areas of the brain and relay signals in people with traumatic brain injury, stroke or epilepsy.”
In other words: the present hypothesis isn’t about helping students with typical working memory capacity to increase it. Instead, it’s about helping people with damaged working memory capacity to boost it — temporarily.
999 Steps to Go
Teachers can be tempted by flashy headlines–oversimplified as they must be–to pounce on scientific advances as practical classroom solutions.
If we’re going to be responsible, even critical consumers of psychology and neuroscience, however, we must learn to read this research in the spirit it is intended. In these scientific realms, the intended spirit is almost always “here’s an interesting incremental step. Let’s think about how to take one more.”
Classroom uses may be at the end of this journey of a thousand steps. Until then, we should keep our students–and our own–working memory limitations clearly in mind.
Greg Ashman is enthusiastic about research, and yet skeptical about innovation.
Ashman’s argument resonates with me in large measure because it helps explain the power of Mind, Brain, Education as an approach to teaching.
Of course, MBE does offer its own specific pedagogical suggestions. For example: if you’ve spent any time at Learning and the Brain conferences, you know the benefits of active recall. (Both Ian Kelleher and Scott MacClintic have blogged on this topic recently.)
The Bigger Picture
More broadly, MBE gives teachers a consistent rubric with which we can measure the value of many other pedagogical approaches. Here’s what I mean:
Is project based learning a good idea? How about flipped classrooms? Service learning? 1-to-1 laptop programs? Design thinking? Or, the new idea that will inevitably surface tomorrow?
If you’re being encouraged to try one of these approaches, it can be hard to know how to measure its effectiveness. All of them have research (of some kind or another) showing how beneficial they are. All of them have enthusiastic endorsements by earnest-seeming teachers. All of them have books and conferences and websites and … I don’t know … Ben & Jerry’s flavors named after them.
But: do they all work? How can they – some seem to conflict with each other.
The more you know about MBE, however, the more tools you have that allow you to make consistent comparisons.
Here’s what I mean…
The First Tool in the Toolbox
If you’ve learned about working memory at an LaTB conference, then you already know it is a short-term memory capacity that allows people to hold several pieces of information, and then reorganize and combine them into some new pattern.
For example: if I ask you to put the 6 New England states into alphabetical order, you have to hold all six names in your memory, and then reorganize them in a particular way. That’s working memory.
You may also know that working memory is very small; you can probably alphabetize 6 states, but you couldn’t do sixteen – at least, not without writing them down.
Once you understand even a few simple facts about working memory, then you can use that MBE knowledge to analyze all of the pedagogies listed above.
Is project-based learning a good idea? Well: what might it do to working memory?
Do 1-to-1 laptop programs increase or reduce working memory demands?
In other words: now you have a consistent criterion – one you can use to analyze all new proposals that come across your doorstep.
More Where That Came From
Michael Posner’s work on attention provides an equally useful yardstick. It might tell you, for example, whether flipped classrooms are likely to enhance or diffuse attention. (Or, more likely, both…)
So too Carol Dweck’s work on mindset, and Claude Steele’s work on stereotype threat. And Mary-Helen Immordino-Yang’s work on emotion.
And so: MBE allows you both to learn about specific psychology- and neuroscience-based teaching strategies and to develop a system for measuring all the other pedagogical proposals that crowd your inbox.
As Ashman implies: research helps us not only because it allows innovation, but also because allows consistent, skeptical analysis of innovation. Our students will benefit from both.
