Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Arts and Smarts: Test Scores and Cognitive Development

(Editor’s Note: we are pleased to bring you this arti­cle thanks to our col­lab­o­ra­tion with Greater Good Mag­a­zine.)

At a time when edu­ca­tors are pre­oc­cu­pied with stan­dards, test­ing, and the bot­tom line, some researchers sug­gest the arts can boost stu­dents’ test scores; oth­ers aren’t con­vinced. Karin Evans asks, What are the arts good for?

When poet and national endow­ment for the Arts Chair­man Dana Gioia gave the 2007 Com­mence­ment Address at Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity, he used the occa­sion to deliver an impas­sioned argu­ment for the value of the arts and arts education.

Art is an irre­place­able way of under­stand­ing and express­ing the world,” said Gioia. “There are some truths about life that can be expressed only as sto­ries, or songs, or images. Art delights, instructs, con­soles. It edu­cates our emotions.”

For years, arts advo­cates like Gioia have been mak­ing sim­i­lar pleas, stress­ing the intan­gi­ble ben­e­fits of the arts at a time when many Amer­i­cans are pre­oc­cu­pied with a market–driven cul­ture of enter­tain­ment, and schools are con­sumed with meet­ing fed­eral stan­dards. Art brings joy, these advo­cates say, or it evokes our human­ity, or, in the words of my 10–year–old daugh­ter, “It cools kids down after all the other hard stuff they have to think about.”

Bol­ster­ing the case for the arts has become increas­ingly nec­es­sary in recent years, as school bud­get cuts and the move toward stan­dard­ized test­ing have pro­foundly threat­ened the role of the arts in schools. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, passed in 2002, the fed­eral gov­ern­ment started assess­ing school dis­tricts by their stu­dents’ scores on read­ing and math­e­mat­ics tests.

As a result, accord­ing to a study by the Cen­ter on Edu­ca­tion Pol­icy, school dis­tricts across the United States increased the time they devoted to tested subjects—reading/language arts and math—while cut­ting spend­ing on non–tested sub­jects such as the visual arts and music. The more a school fell behind, by NCLB stan­dards, the more time and money was devoted to those tested sub­jects, with less going to the arts. The National Edu­ca­tion Asso­ci­a­tion has reported that the cuts fall hard­est on schools with high num­bers of minor­ity children.

And the sit­u­a­tion is likely to worsen as state bud­gets get even tighter. Already, in a round of fed­eral edu­ca­tion cuts for 2006 and 2007, arts edu­ca­tion nation­ally was slashed by $35 mil­lion. In 2008, the New York City Depart­ment of Education’s annual study of arts edu­ca­tion showed that only eight per­cent of the city’s ele­men­tary schools met the state’s rel­a­tively rig­or­ous stan­dards for arts education—and the city’s schools are now fac­ing a $185 mil­lion bud­get cut this year.

For 2009, the non­profit Cen­ter for Bud­get and Pol­icy Pri­or­i­ties fore­casts bud­get short­falls in 41 states. Cal­i­for­nia, ranked last among the states in per capita sup­port for the arts, is con­sid­er­ing $2 bil­lion of addi­tional cuts to K–12 edu­ca­tion. Josef Nor­ris, a grant–supported artist who cre­ates murals with kids in San Francisco’s pub­lic schools, says he has worked with classes where fifth graders have never picked up a paint­brush or han­dled a lump of clay.

Given such stiff fis­cal and polit­i­cal chal­lenges, some arts advo­cates have felt pres­sured to bol­ster their argu­ments. Afraid that art won’t be able to stand on its own mer­its, such advo­cates have sought what­ever evi­dence they can find to argue that art con­tributes to mea­sur­able gains in learning—which, in the No Child Left Behind world, means boost­ing a school’s aca­d­e­mic test scores in lit­er­acy and mathematics.

And in fact, advo­cates have got­ten a recent lift from new research in sev­eral sci­en­tific fields. For the first time ever, for exam­ple, sci­en­tists have used sophis­ti­cated brain imag­ing tech­niques to exam­ine how music, dance, drama, and the visual arts might pos­i­tively affect cog­ni­tion and intel­li­gence. Such work, the researchers claim, is a cru­cial first step toward under­stand­ing whether art can actu­ally make peo­ple smarter in ways that can be measured.

But other arts advo­cates say that’s the wrong way to go. Skep­ti­cal of some claims of the art–boosts–smarts camp, they instead sup­port a line of research that explores the ben­e­fits that are unique to the arts. Let art do what art can do best, they say, and let the math­e­mat­ics class take care of itself. And so the debate goes on, focused on a ques­tion that has long con­cerned par­ents, edu­ca­tors, and pol­icy mak­ers alike: What are the arts good for?

The Mozart controversy

The focus on art’s con­tri­bu­tion to aca­d­e­mics came to wide atten­tion in the 1990s, after researchers from the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia, Irvine, reported in the jour­nal Nature that col­lege stu­dents who lis­tened to 10 min­utes of Mozart before tak­ing cer­tain parts of an intel­li­gence test improved their scores—a find­ing that came to be known as the “Mozart Effect.”

Before long, par­ents who heard about the research were play­ing Mozart to their babies, the gov­er­nor of Geor­gia was hand­ing out clas­si­cal music tapes to par­ents of new­borns, and com­pa­nies were spring­ing up to pack­age music for par­ents eager to bol­ster their children’s brain power.

The Mozart Effect research had some clear lim­i­ta­tions: It involved only college–age stu­dents, and the improved test scores held up only for 15 min­utes fol­low­ing the musi­cal expe­ri­ence. After wit­ness­ing the strong reac­tion to their results, the researchers them­selves were com­pelled to write a rejoin­der in 1999, point­ing out that they had never claimed that “Mozart enhances intelligence.”

Still, whether the hard evi­dence was there or not, the pop­u­lar assump­tion took hold that there was a con­nec­tion. Accord­ing to a 2006 Gallup poll, 85 per­cent of Amer­i­cans believed par­tic­i­pa­tion in school music was linked to bet­ter grades and higher test scores.

After the study on the Mozart Effect was pub­lished, other researchers tried to sub­stan­ti­ate a con­nec­tion between arts par­tic­i­pa­tion and improved cog­ni­tive and aca­d­e­mic skills. For instance, James S. Cat­ter­all, a pro­fes­sor at UCLA’s Grad­u­ate School of Edu­ca­tion and Infor­ma­tion Stud­ies, reported in a 1999 paper that mid­dle and high school stu­dents with strong involve­ment in the­ater or music scored an aver­age of 16 to 18 per­cent­age points higher on stan­dard­ized tests than those with low arts involvement.

It’s true that stu­dents involved in the arts do bet­ter in school and on their SATs than those who are not involved,” write researchers Lois Het­land and Ellen Win­ner of the Har­vard Grad­u­ate School of Edu­ca­tion, in an arti­cle that appeared in the Boston Globe in 2007. How­ever, they point out, cor­re­la­tion doesn’t add up to cau­sa­tion: It’s quite pos­si­ble that kids involved in the arts are the ones get­ting good grades in the first place.

In a land­mark sur­vey called REAP—Reviewing Edu­ca­tion and the Arts Project—Hetland and Win­ner exam­ined the research sup­port­ing arts edu­ca­tion. Their find­ings, released in 2000, were con­tro­ver­sial. They revealed that in most cases there was no demon­strated causal rela­tion­ship between study­ing one or more art forms and improved cog­ni­tive skills in areas beyond the arts.

We found incon­clu­sive evi­dence that music improves math­e­mat­i­cal learn­ing and that dance improves spa­tial learn­ing,” reported the researchers. “We found no evi­dence that study­ing visual arts, dance, or music improves read­ing.” They continued.

That leaves our most con­tro­ver­sial find­ing. We amassed no evi­dence that study­ing the arts, either as sep­a­rate dis­ci­plines or infused into the aca­d­e­mic cur­ricu­lum, raises grades in aca­d­e­mic sub­jects or improves per­for­mance on stan­dard­ized ver­bal and math­e­mat­ics tests. … Our analy­sis showed that chil­dren who stud­ied the arts did no bet­ter on achieve­ment tests and earned no higher grades than those who did not study the arts.

Their find­ings, the researchers said, were greeted with anger. “One scholar told us that we should never have asked the ques­tion, but hav­ing done so, we should have buried our find­ings,” Het­land and Win­ner later wrote. “We were shaken.” Some crit­ics claimed that their report had short­changed the effects of art on aca­d­e­mics. But the researchers stuck to their con­clu­sions. Fur­ther­more, they cau­tioned, jus­ti­fy­ing the arts on the basis of unre­li­able claims would ulti­mately do more harm than good.

Arts and the brain

In 2004, in an attempt to sort out the facts, the Dana Foun­da­tion, a pri­vate phil­an­thropic orga­ni­za­tion, took on the ques­tion: Are smart peo­ple drawn to the arts or does arts train­ing make peo­ple smarter? Under the lead­er­ship of neu­ro­sci­en­tist Michael S. Gaz­zaniga, the Dana Arts and Cog­ni­tion Con­sor­tium assem­bled neu­ro­sci­en­tists and cog­ni­tive sci­en­tists from seven uni­ver­si­ties to study whether dance, music, the­ater, and visual arts might affect other areas of learning—and how.

After more than three years of research, the results of the $2.1 mil­lion project were pub­lished in March of 2008 in a report titled “Learn­ing, Arts, and the Brain.” Sev­eral stud­ies in the report sug­gested that train­ing in the arts might be related to improve­ments in math or read­ing skills. In one of these stud­ies, a Uni­ver­sity of Ore­gon team, headed by psy­chol­o­gist Michael Pos­ner, observed the brain activ­ity of chil­dren four to seven years old while they worked on com­put­er­ized exer­cises intended to mimic the attention–focusing qual­i­ties of engag­ing in art. The researchers con­cluded that the arts can train children’s atten­tion, which in turn improves cognition.

In another Dana con­sor­tium study, Eliz­a­beth Spelke, a neu­ropsy­chol­o­gist at Har­vard Uni­ver­sity, looked at the effects of music train­ing in chil­dren and ado­les­cents and found a “clear ben­e­fit”: Chil­dren who had inten­sive music train­ing did bet­ter on some geom­e­try tasks and on map read­ing. Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity psy­chol­o­gist Brian Wan­dell and col­leagues used brain–imaging tech­niques to study how a cer­tain part of the brain might be influ­enced by musi­cal activ­i­ties. He found that stu­dents ages 7 to 12 who received more musi­cal train­ing in the first year of the study showed greater improve­ments in read­ing flu­ency over the next two years. Wan­dell reports that phono­log­i­cal awareness—or the abil­ity to dis­tin­guish between speech sounds, which is a pre­dic­tor of early literacy—was cor­re­lated with music train­ing and could be tracked with the devel­op­ment of a spe­cific brain pathway.

Over­all, the Dana report didn’t go so far as to prove that arts train­ing directly boosts cog­ni­tive and aca­d­e­mic skills; it offered no con­crete evi­dence that art makes kids smarter. But the project did tighten up the cor­re­la­tions that had been noted before, lay­ing the ground­work for future research into causal expla­na­tions. In his intro­duc­tion to “Learn­ing, Arts, and the Brain,” Gaz­zaniga frames the report as an impor­tant first step. “A life–affirming dimen­sion is open­ing up in neu­ro­science,” he writes. “To dis­cover how the per­for­mance and appre­ci­a­tion of the arts enlarge cog­ni­tive capac­i­ties will be a long step for­ward in learn­ing how bet­ter to learn.”

Though Gaz­zaniga and his Dana Con­sor­tium col­leagues were quite mea­sured in their assess­ment, many advo­cates inter­preted the report’s results as sup­port for their cause. “Arts Edu­ca­tion Linked to Bet­ter Brain Activ­ity,” read a head­line on the web­site of the Ari­zona Com­mis­sion on the Arts after the report was released. A Cal­i­for­nia State PTA newslet­ter directed par­ents and teach­ers to the report, telling them to “find out about the strong links between arts edu­ca­tion and cog­ni­tive development.”

Around the same time in 2008, the advo­cacy group Amer­i­cans for the Arts launched a series of pub­lic ser­vice announce­ments aimed at encour­ag­ing par­ents to “feed their chil­dren the arts” with images of bowls of “Raisin Brahms” or “Van Goghurt” for break­fast, linked to promises that the arts lead to “increased test scores, bet­ter cre­ative think­ing, patience, and deter­mi­na­tion.” Even Barack Obama’s pres­i­den­tial plat­form, which promised a rein­vest­ment in arts edu­ca­tion and pro­fessed a broad belief in art’s value, fell back, at least partly, on the aca­d­e­mic ben­e­fits ratio­nale: “Stud­ies show that arts edu­ca­tion raises test scores.”

But many arts researchers and advo­cates have reacted strongly against efforts—in research, among advo­cacy groups, or in schools—that overem­pha­size the link between the arts and aca­d­e­mic proficiency.

Jes­sica Hoff­mann Davis, a cog­ni­tive devel­op­men­tal psy­chol­o­gist and founder of the Arts in Edu­ca­tion Pro­gram at the Har­vard Grad­u­ate School of Edu­ca­tion, has long been one of these voices. “It is not by argu­ing that the arts can do what other sub­jects already do (or do bet­ter) that a secure place can be found for the arts in edu­ca­tion,” she writes in her recent book, Why Our Schools Need the Arts. “We have been so dri­ven to mea­sure the impact of the arts in edu­ca­tion that we began to for­get that their strength lies beyond the measurable.”

In an inter­view, she adds, “No Child Left Behind has sapped the energy and pas­sion out of our class­rooms. It’s a malaise. Stan­dard­ized test­ing is leav­ing every­one behind—teachers and kids—with this heavy pre­oc­cu­pa­tion on what we can measure.”

Another lead­ing expert on the arts, Howard Gard­ner, a pro­fes­sor at the Har­vard Grad­u­ate School of Edu­ca­tion, went so far in an inter­view as to call it an “Amer­i­can dis­ease” to try to jus­tify the arts in terms of ben­e­fits for other dis­ci­plines. No one, says Gard­ner, argues that stu­dents should take math because it will make them per­form bet­ter in music.

Edu­ca­tion of vision

So what are the arts good for?

In 2007, Het­land and Win­ner pub­lished a book, Stu­dio Think­ing: The Real Ben­e­fits of Visual Art Edu­ca­tion, that is so far one of the most rig­or­ous stud­ies of what the arts teach. “Before we can make the case for the impor­tance of arts edu­ca­tion, we need to find out what the arts actu­ally teach and what art stu­dents actu­ally learn,” they write.

Work­ing in high school art classes, they found that arts pro­grams teach a spe­cific set of think­ing skills rarely addressed else­where in the school curriculum—what they call “stu­dio habits of mind.” One key habit was “learn­ing to engage and per­sist,” mean­ing that the arts teach stu­dents how to learn from mis­takes and press ahead, how to com­mit and fol­low through. “Stu­dents need to find prob­lems of inter­est and work with them deeply over sus­tained peri­ods of time,” write Het­land and Winner.

The researchers also found that the arts help stu­dents learn to “envision”—that is, how to think about that which they can’t see. That’s a skill that offers pay­offs in other sub­jects, they note. The abil­ity to envi­sion can help a stu­dent gen­er­ate a hypoth­e­sis in sci­ence, for instance, or imag­ine past events in his­tory class.

Other researchers have iden­ti­fied addi­tional ben­e­fits that are par­tic­u­lar to the arts. In Why Our Schools Need the Arts, Davis out­lines many of these ben­e­fits, includ­ing the qual­ity of empa­thy. “We need the arts because they remind chil­dren that their emo­tions are equally wor­thy of respect and expres­sion,” she said in an inter­view. “The arts intro­duce chil­dren to con­nec­tiv­ity, engage­ment, and allow a sense of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion with, and respon­si­bil­ity for, oth­ers.” As a young researcher, Davis once asked adults, chil­dren of vary­ing ages, and pro­fes­sional artists to draw emo­tions such as hap­pi­ness, sad­ness, and anger. She found that even very young chil­dren could com­mu­ni­cate those emo­tions through draw­ing. In fact, she observes, “The arts, like no other sub­ject, give chil­dren the media and the oppor­tu­nity to shape and com­mu­ni­cate their feelings.”

Elliot Eis­ner, an emer­i­tus pro­fes­sor of art and edu­ca­tion at Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity and a long­time leader in the field, has empha­sized the sub­tle but impor­tant ways the arts can enhance thinking—the abil­ity to use metaphor, for exam­ple, or the role of imag­i­na­tion. “These are out­comes that are use­ful,” says Eis­ner, “not only in the arts, but in busi­ness and other activ­i­ties where good think­ing is employed.”

At last year’s annual con­ven­tion for the National Art Edu­ca­tion Asso­ci­a­tion, Eis­ner told the crowd, “In the arts, imag­i­na­tion is a pri­mary virtue. So it should be in the teach­ing of math­e­mat­ics, in all of the sci­ences, in his­tory, and indeed, in vir­tu­ally all that humans create.”

To help stu­dents treat their work as a work of art is no small achieve­ment,” he added. “Given this con­cep­tion, we can ask how much time should be devoted to the arts in school? The answer is clear: all of it.”

An “edu­ca­tion of vision” is also high on Eisner’s list of ben­e­fits. “You want to help young­sters really see a tree or urban land­scape or an apple. It’s one of the things they can do the rest of their lives.”

Such elu­sive, immea­sur­able ben­e­fits of the arts may, in fact, be among the most valu­able. “At this time when we are fac­ing the threat of the reduc­tion of learn­ing to testable right and wrong answers,” says Davis, “we might say the most impor­tant thing about arts learn­ing is that it fea­tures ambi­gu­ity and respect for the via­bil­ity of dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives and judgments.”

But per­haps most sig­nif­i­cantly, Davis argues that the arts can engage chil­dren who might not oth­er­wise be reached by aca­d­e­mics. In fact, an increas­ing amount of atten­tion is being focused on the ben­e­fits of the arts for at–risk youth.

For instance, when a pro­gram called the YouthARTS Devel­op­ment Project, a part­ner­ship involv­ing the National Endow­ment for the Arts and the U.S. Jus­tice Depart­ment, engaged at–risk youth in art pro­grams, it found that the par­tic­i­pants showed an increased abil­ity to work with oth­ers and fin­ish tasks, and showed bet­ter atti­tudes toward school, fewer court refer­rals, and improved self–esteem.

Folks are respond­ing to the deficits in schools by say­ing, ‘Bring in the arts,’” says Davis. “Iron­i­cally that’s what we’ve always done with indi­vid­ual kids, always turned to the arts as a kid was about to drop out of school. We have always known that arts will save the day, but now the day is so bleak that we have a national charge to do what arts do best—to pro­vide energy and spirit and excite­ment and community.”

In San Fran­cisco, artist Josef Nor­ris has seen evi­dence of this claim first–hand. When he worked with chil­dren to cre­ate a mural at an inner–city school, the project was inte­grated into a unit on Cal­i­for­nia his­tory and immi­gra­tion. Every sin­gle child in the class had a par­ent or grand­par­ent who’d been born in another coun­try, says Nor­ris, and each child made a tile depict­ing some aspect of his or her family’s history.

Kids who are strug­gling aca­d­e­m­i­cally can get hooked,” he says. “You live for the moments when the kids shine—when a patho­log­i­cally shy girl shows up for mural mak­ing on a Sat­ur­day morn­ing and stays all day long. Or when a child paints a tile about his fam­ily, then brings his grand­mother to the unveil­ing of the mural and says proudly, ‘I made that.’”

– Karin Evans is the author of The Lost Daugh­ters of China: Adopted Girls, Their Jour­ney to Amer­ica, and the Search for a Miss­ing Past, just released in a new edi­tion by Tarcher/Penguin Put­nam. She recently earned an MFA in poetry. Copy­right Greater Good. Greater Good Mag­a­zine, based at UC-Berkeley, is a quar­terly mag­a­zine that high­lights ground break­ing sci­en­tific research into the roots of com­pas­sion and altruism.

Related arti­cles by Greater Good Magazine:

- Cog­ni­tive and Emo­tional Devel­op­ment Through Play

- Mind­ful­ness and Med­i­ta­tion in Schools for Stress Management

- Should Social-Emotional Learn­ing Be Part of Aca­d­e­mic Curriculum?

Be Socia­ble, Share!
    Print This Article Print This Article

    Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    New online course: How to Nav­i­gate Con­ven­tional and Com­ple­men­tary ADHD Treat­ments for Healthy Brain Development (early bird rates end April 1st)

    Haven’t read this book yet?

    Follow us via


    Welcome to

    As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Jour­nal, CNN and more, Sharp­Brains is an inde­pen­dent mar­ket research firm track­ing health and well­ness appli­ca­tions of brain science.
    FIRST-TIME VISITOR? Dis­cover HERE the most pop­u­lar resources at
    Enter Your Email to receive Sharp­Brains free, monthly eNewslet­ter:
    Join more than 50,000 Sub­scribers and stay informed and engaged.