Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

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?

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

3 Responses

  1. As a Con­sumer work­ing in the men­tal Health field, I have uti­lized Cre­ative Writ­ing to open the minds of oth­er Consumer’s minds, hearts and expres­sion. This is invalu­able as a recov­ery tool! Thank you; I will work hard­er with the KY gov­ern­ment and Pres. Oba­ma for more edu­ca­tion and pro­mo­tion.

  2. Art con­nects peo­ple of all ages, loca­tions and diverse inter­ests. Art trig­gers brain func­tions includ­ing emo­tions. We can­not record or mea­sure the exact response. The indi­vid­ual knows some­thing hap­pened because of the expe­ri­ence.

Leave a Reply

Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning

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

All Slidedecks & Recordings Available — click image below

Search for anything brain-related in our article archives

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters, and more, SharpBrains is an independent market research firm and think tank tracking health and performance applications of brain science.