Classroom Decorations Can Distract Young Students
Five-year-olds in highly decorated classrooms were less able to hold their focus, spent more time off-task and had smaller learning gains than kids in bare rooms. Erika Beras reports
By Erika Beras
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Remember your kindergarten classroom? The maps on the wall, the charts of the seasons on bulletin boards, the alphabet over the blackboard? I know I spent hours staring at the brightly colored decorations—and not listening to what my teacher was saying. Maybe you did, too. And it looks like we’re not alone.
The more decorations in a classroom, the more distracted students may be. So finds a study in the journal Psychological Science. [Anna K. Fisher, Karrie E. Godwin and Howard Seltman, Visual Environment, Attention Allocation, and Learning in Young Children: When Too Much of a Good Thing May Be Bad]
Researchers observed five-year-olds in highly decorated classrooms and in classrooms that were relatively bare. And the kids were less able to hold their focus, spent more time off-task and had smaller learning gains in the busy rooms than in the bare rooms.
At that young age, attention regulation skills aren’t fully formed. And yet it’s at that stage of development that children find themselves surrounded by decorations irrelevant to what they’re learning at any given time.
The researchers are not prescribing a change from busy to bare rooms. They say there is more research to be done. But this study, along with previous work, suggests that the visual environment can affect how young children learn their reading, writing and ‘rithmetic.
—Erika Beras
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
