This comment on my boring+boring=pleasant post persuaded me to look for research on how movement affects learning. I found this comment by Anne Green Gilbert:
Movement is the key to learning. I first became aware of this as a third-grade student . . . Movement was central to my teacher’s curriculum. . . . Everyone liked school that year, we all got along, and the knowledge imparted is still in my memory bank forty years later. . . .
When I became a third-grade teacher myself fifteen years later . . . I remembered this concept and used movement and dance to save myself from drowning in a classroom so heterogeneous I felt I was teaching in a one-room schoolhouse. Spelling words by forming the letters with bodies, forming punctuation marks and expressing the feeling of sentences through movement, learning multiplication by moving in sets of threes and fours, discovering the difference between lunar and solar eclipses through planet dances, and choreographing our way across the Oregon Trail somehow made everyone equal. The gifted children discovered a new and exciting way to learn, the slower learners quickly became actively engaged and successful, the non-English speaking students could finally understand the curriculum through our new nonverbal approach. Instead of dreading the long school day, we eagerly awaited our next movement experience. Attendance went way up; test scores rose substantially: there was laughter; racial tension dissipated. . . .
Five years after my own experience as a third-grade teacher in Illinois, I was training teachers at the University of Washington and received a federally funded grant to conduct research in the Seattle Public Schools. During the 1977 school year, 250 students from four elementary schools studied language arts concepts through movement and dance activities for twenty weeks. The third grade students involved in the study increased their MAT [?] scores by 13 percent from fall to spring, while the district wide average showed a decrease of 2 percent! The primary grade project [?] students also showed a great improvement in test scores. Most significant was the direct relationship the research showed between the amount of movement the classroom teacher used and the percentage increase of students’ test scores.
I find this very convincing: three situations, many measures. The way the movement lessons attracted diverse students is especially interesting; IQ tests were invented to reduce diversity in classrooms.
Partly I’m struck how this idea seems to have been ignored . “Everyone liked school that year.” Which seems to imply less liking of school other years. So the third-grade teacher used lots of movement, her kids loved it, but somehow second- and fourth-grade teachers didn’t imitate her. (Perhaps they did later.) “When I became a third-grade teacher myself . . . I remembered this concept.” Implying it wasn’t taught in her teacher-training program. On the other hand, it was emphasized in the teacher-training course that the commenter took (“I remember learning in my M.Ed that people learn better while moving and that we should therefore incorporate kinesthetic activites into instructional design”).
I’ve read many studies about learning by experimental psychologists and never encountered any study of the hedonics — what makes learning more or less pleasant. Learning is one topic, motivation (e.g., thirst, hunger) is another. There are a few studies of curiosity (in animals, not people) but they don’t show how to vary it. A professor of psychology might pooh-pooh the Gilbert stories: Sure, third-graders don’t like to sit all day. But my treadmill/language-learning story suggests it’s not that simple.
I was struck by this somewhat related post (not spam Seth *haa*):
https://blog.exuberantanimal.com/the-biggest-sensory-organ-in-the-body/
this seems completely different from what’s in your walking post.
the fact that kids learn better from play acting is distinct from learning better while walking.
“completely different”? No, in both cases adding plenty of movement to a learning task was really helpful. Sure, there are big differences, mainly in the nature of the activity. But it isn’t obvious why walking should be so different than moving around a room. Nor is it obvious why language learning should be so different than the vocabulary and simple-concept learning which is a big part of what third-graders do.
My work sheds a new light on the work that Gilbert describes. It suggests a new explanation: Movement makes kids more curious.
In terms of their effect on the average reader, I suppose, yeah, they are completely different. The subjects (me versus third-graders) are worlds apart and the effects differ greatly in how surprising they are. At least those are the differences that strike me. But I believe the underlying mechanism may be the same.
There’s a book I was recommended (though haven’t read yet) called “Smart Moves: Why Learning is not all in your Head” by Carla Hannaford.
The product description on Amazon says:
“Neurophysiologist and educator Dr. Carla Hannaford brings the latest insights from scientific research to questions that affect learners of all ages. Examining the body’s role in learning, from infancy through adulthood she presents the mounting scientific evidence that movement is crucial to learning.” (and more, but I figure this is enough to establish a connection with what you are talking about).
The second (revised, expanded) edition was published in 2005.
Thanks, Matt, that should help me learn more about the connection.
sure, i overstated when i said ‘completely different’.
in your case you changed one thing and you got an effect, so the effect was probably due to that change.
in the kids’ case they changed probably hundreds of things and so we could discuss whether one or another of those things was important. my first assertion / strawman would be that play-acting aids child learning a lot. it might be difficult to tease this out from movement. i think it would be difficult to get kids to pay attention to something like math or reading while walking around and if they aren’t paying attention there’s no point. i suppose my base assertion is that if kids pay attention they will learn.
desk learning is partially about removing distractions in order to encourage focusing on something. you have to ask yourself how well this works. i wouldn’t think it would work that well, but i prefer and have always preferred chaotic environments.
there are other things besides walking that you could think of too. you could test ‘i learn better when i talk to myself out loud’ or ‘i learn better when i sing.’ you could do isometric abdominal exercises while sitting at a lecture and see if that helps or hinders learning. (it would probably help your balance if nothing else.)
on another subject, have you heard of any experiments with eating with your hands and weight loss?
*The military trains people while moving all of the time. Memorization of basic lists occurs while running and doing other physical training, while transiting between classrooms and mess halls, etc.
*During classroom instruction, if you feel drowsy, it is expected that you will stand up and move to the back of the classroom and stand for the lecture.
*Wrong answer = push ups.
q, I haven’t heard of any experiments about eating with your hands and weight loss.
In Gilbert’s article, there’s plenty of reason to think that the change in curriculum caused the change in results. Which aspect(s) of the new curriculum made the difference is a different question.
Please see “Arbeit und rhythmus”. The 1899 version has been digitized at https://books.google.com/books?id=yHezvfAV4sQC
wcw, unfortunately I don’t read German. What does the book say?
you don’t read German? what a boorish rube…
One of the more overwrought parts of the book Nurtureshock (which I enjoyed, all in all) had to do with the positive impact of role-playing activities on the learning in the young.
On the other hand, the classic lecture in the Agora occurred as the lecturer led people about on a walk.
Makes a lot of sense, both ways.
Seth,
You do a brilliant job of generating new ideas. You are very successful at it. I am so proud of you!