SUMBER:

http://www.mypendidikan.net/kajian-menunjukkan-
terlalu-banyak-hiasan-memudaratkan-pdp/

Kajian Menunjukkan Terlalu Banyak

Hiasan Kelas Memudaratkan
Pembelajaran?
15 Jul, 2016 in Info tagged hiasan / pendidikan by Webmaster

Kajian menunjukkan bahawa Terlalu Banyak Menghias Kelas Mengganggu Pembelajaran

Murid. Kajian ini telah dibuat melalui teori The Bare Walls. Kami cuba mendapatkan artikel
kajian ini tetapi dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Ikuti kajian yang telah dimasukkan ke dalam buku
Psikologi Sains ( Mei 2014 ).

HARVEY, Ill.To decorate her kindergarten classroom for the new school year, Lori
Baker chose cheerful alphabet and number charts featuring smiling children of
different races. In the reading corner, she hung three puffy paper flowers from the
ceiling and posted dancing letters spelling Welcome to Kindergarten.
Otherwise, though, the 20-year teaching veteran exercised restraint and
deliberately left several walls bare in her room at Whittier Elementary School in
Harvey, Ill., a predominately African-American, working-class city about 25 miles
south of Chicago.

The latest research suggests shes onto something.

This fall, as teachers nationwide prepared their classrooms for the new school year,
many reported being bombarded with a decorations blitz, from educational supply
store promotions to classroom design blogs to Pinterest posts on themed
classrooms with polka dots, owls and bumblebees.

But a recent study has found that for young children, adopting a more subdued
approach, like Bakers, is better. The study, published May 2014 in Psychological
Science, was one of the first to examine how decorations impact learning. It found
that when kindergartners were taught in a highly decorated classroom, they were
more distracted and scored lower on tests than when they were taught in a room
with bare walls.

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University followed a group of 24 kindergartners

taught in two simulated classrooms: one with bare walls, the other decorated with
commercial materials like presidential photos, science posters and maps, as well as
the childrens artwork.

During the lessons, children sat on carpet squares in a semicircle facing the teacher,
who read aloud from a picture book. They participated in six lessons of five- to
seven-minutes each in which the teacher read aloud on topics such as plate
tectonics, the Solar System and bugs. After each lesson, the children took multiple-
choice picture tests. Lessons were observed and videotaped to monitor how often
the children were focused on the teacher or off task, distracted by themselves,
other students or the visual environment.

In the sparse classroom, the kindergartners got distracted by other students or even
themselves. But in the decorated one, children were more likely to be distracted by
the visual environment and spent far more time off task.

Anna V. Fisher, the studys lead author and an associate psychology professor, said
the findings showed that the classroom environment can be distracting and
negatively impact learning. But, due to the studys small size and controlled setting,
further research is needed.

In a highly decorated classroom, children were more likely to be distracted by the

visual environment.

Fisher and her team at Carnegie Mellon are now observing students in
kindergarten through fourth-grade classes. She suspects that whats on the walls is
less significant in the upper grades because concentration improves as children age.
Older children are also less likely to be placed in highly decorated classrooms.
For Gillian McNamee, director of teacher education at the Erikson Institute in
Chicago, the new study affirms what many educators knew intuitively about
classroom design: Too much visual stimulation can negatively impact learning.

When I walk into a classroom, often they are almost wallpapered with materials
from head to toe. And for an adult, let alone a child, it can make you dizzy and lose
focus, McNamee said.

Some early childhood experts say the study highlights the need for more teacher
guidance on classroom design.

She advises new teachers to be wary of the shopping mall effect in decorating
their rooms. When you go to a shopping mall, after about an hour and a half, its
just too many people, too much visual stimulation, noise, she said. It can wear a
person down.

At Whittier Elementary, a school surrounded by several foreclosed homes that has

seen its enrollment plunge amid a housing crisis, Lori Baker faces a particularly
delicate balancing act to make her kindergarten classroom look inviting while
keeping kids on task. She believes in waiting to post material until she covers it in
class.
My personal approach is you dont put anything up if the children have not made
some sort of prior connection to it, she said. Nearly 98 percent of Whittiers 200
students come from low-income homes and are eligible to receive free or reduced-
price lunches. The school has been underperforming on Illinois Standards
Achievement Tests, but scores have been improving faster than the rest of the state.
At Erie Elementary Charter School in Chicago, kindergarten teacher Gloria Taylor
hangs few wall decorations, but she uses tall lamps, strings of leaf-shaped green
lights, lime-colored window sheers and several large mirrors to brighten her
classroom. Her school, in the citys diverse Humboldt Park neighborhood, serves a
predominantly Latino, low-income population, with 19 families in living situations
so unstable they are considered homeless. Like Whittier, Erie has been showing
steady growth but remains underperforming in Illinois state standards
Taylors approach to decorating stems from her training in a Montessori classroom,
which encourages teachers to have sparsely decorated classrooms with elements of
the natural environment. Now a five-year veteran of kindergarten classrooms,
Taylor believes the look conveys a calming effect that improves childrens learning.
When I came to Erie, I wanted my classroom to have the same feel, she said.
Maybe it would have been different if I would have been in a classroom with
decorations.

Susan Pryor, another Erie kindergarten teacher who has a dual-language

classroom, uses some visual wall displays to help Spanish-speaking students
communicate phrases for Can we play together? or Can you help me? However,
she steers away from commercial, store-bought decorations, which she says are
often irrelevant to learning.

Kids need environments that are not over-stimulating, especially in preschool and
kindergarten, said Pryor, who has taught little ones for six years. They need
environments that they help to create so that there is a sense of ownership. But
Pryor did confess that she worries about kindergarten parents visiting her class and
not understanding why her classroom is so plain.

All the promotional stuff is more for the teachers and parents than it is for the
kids, she said. Whats on the wall should only be useful and helpful to kids.
Regardless of how they decorate, many kindergarten teachers said they received
little information on classroom design in graduate school and more guidance is
needed.

Whats on the wall should only be useful and helpful to kids.

Eriksons McNamee also said more discussion on classroom design should occur
within schools, so teachers can create a continuity of experience for children as they
move from grade to grade.

Baker, the kindergarten teacher in Harvey, recalled buying two big bags of
decorations out of excitement before she began her first year teaching. Her
purchases included a set of bumblebees, each listing a rule such as Be polite and
Be nice. Baker proudly posted the bees on the wall, but at the end of the year, she
realized she had never referred to them. Her thinking on decorations has since
evolved.

Dont buy stuff for your walls unless its something that you are going to use in that
classroom, she said. Otherwise its just taking up space.

Still, Baker said she couldnt imagine teaching in a classroom with bare walls for a
full school day. She said children need some educational displays to engage them.
During the first week of school as Baker was working with a small group, she
noticed a boy reading a number chart she had made counting by 10s to 100. He
whispered quietly to himself, 10, 20, 30, 40

Now, did he learn his numbers by looking at that chart? No, she said. He already
knew them. But he was still noticing things in the environment that he was in, and
thats important.

http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/society/2014/spring/disruptive-decorations.shtml
Disruptive Decorations

Maps, number lines, shapes, artwork and other materials tend to adorn elementary classroom
walls.

However, new research from Carnegie Mellon University shows that too much of a good thing may
end up disrupting attention and learning in young children.

Published in Psychological Science, Carnegie Mellon's Anna V. Fisher, Karrie E. Godwin and Howard
Seltman looked at whether classroom displays affected children's abilities to maintain focus during
instruction and learn the lesson content. They found that children in highly decorated classrooms
were more distracted, spent more time off-task and demonstrated smaller learning gains than
when the decorations were removed.

"Young children spend a lot of time usually the whole day in the same classroom, and we
have shown that a classroom's visual environment can affect how much children learn," said
Fisher, lead author and associate professor of psychology in the Dietrich College of Humanities and
Social Sciences.

Should teachers take down their visual displays based on the findings of this study?

"We do not suggest by any means that this is the answer to all educational problems.
Furthermore, additional research is needed to know what effect the classroom visual environment
has on children's attention and learning in real classrooms," Fisher said. "Therefore, I would
suggest that instead of removing all decorations, teachers should consider whether some of their
visual displays may be distracting to young children."

For the study, 24 kindergarten students were placed in laboratory classrooms for six introductory
science lessons on topics they were unfamiliar with. Three lessons were taught in a heavily
decorated classroom, and three lessons were given in a sparse classroom.

The results showed that while children learned in both classroom types, they learned more when
the room was not heavily decorated. Specifically, children's accuracy on the test questions was
higher in the sparse classroom (55 percent correct) than in the decorated classroom (42 percent
correct).

"We were also interested in finding out if the visual displays were removed, whether the children's
attention would shift to another distraction, such as talking to their peers, and if the total amount
of time they were distracted would remain the same," said Godwin, a Ph.D. candidate in
psychology and fellow of the Program in Interdisciplinary Education Research.

However, when the researchers tallied all of the time children spent off-task in both types of
classrooms, the rate of off-task behavior was higher in the decorated classroom (38.6 percent time
spent off-task) than in the sparse classroom (28.4 percent time spent off-task).

The researchers hope these findings lead to further studies into developing guidelines to help
teachers optimally design classrooms.

The Institute of Education Sciences, part of the U.S. Department of Education, funded this
research.

Last fall, CMU launched the Simon Initiative to accelerate the use of learning science and
technology to improve student learning. Named to honor the work of the late Nobel Laureate and
CMU Professor Herbert Simon, the initiative will harness CMU's decades of learning data and
research to improve educational outcomes for students everywhere.

Visual Environment, Attention Allocation, and Learning in Young

Children
When Too Much of a Good Thing May Be Bad
Anna V. Fisher, Karrie E. Godwin, Howard Seltman
First Published May 21, 2014 Research Article
Abstract

A large body of evidence supports the importance of focused attention for

encoding and task performance. Yet young children with immature regulation of
focused attention are often placed in elementary-school classrooms containing
many displays that are not relevant to ongoing instruction. We investigated
whether such displays can affect childrens ability to maintain focused attention
during instruction and to learn the lesson content. We placed kindergarten
children in a laboratory classroom for six introductory science lessons, and we
experimentally manipulated the visual environment in the classroom. Children
were more distracted by the visual environment, spent more time off task, and
demonstrated smaller learning gains when the walls were highly decorated than
when the decorations were removed.

References

Barrett P., Zhang Y., Moffat J., Kobbacy K. (2013). A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying
the impact of classroom design on pupils learning. Building and Environment, 59, 678
689. Google Scholar CrossRef

Bloom B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill. Google Scholar

Bullard J. (2010). Creating environments for learning: Birth to age eight. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar

Carroll J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723
733. Google Scholar

Cohen J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 20, 3746. Google Scholar Link

Colombo J., Cheatham C. L. (2006). The emergence and basis of endogenous attention in
infancy and early childhood. In Kail R. (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior
(Vol. 34, pp. 283310). Oxford, England: Academic Press. Google Scholar CrossRef

Craik F. I. M., Govoni R., Naveh-Benjamin M., Anderson N. D. (1996). The effects of divided
attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 125, 159180. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline

DeMarie-Dreblow D., Miller P. H. (1988). The development of childrens strategies for

selective attention: Evidence for a transitional period. Child Development, 59, 1504
1513. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
Diamond A. (2006). The early development of executive functions. In Bialystok E., Craik
F. (Eds.), Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change (pp. 7095). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. Google Scholar CrossRef

Fisher A. V., Thiessen E. D., Godwin K. E., Kloos H., Dickerson J. P. (2013). Assessing
selective sustained attention in 3- to 5-year-old children: Evidence from a new paradigm.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 275294. Google
Scholar CrossRef, Medline

Fleiss J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: John Wiley. Google Scholar

Frederick W. C., Walberg H. J. (1980). Learning as a function of time. Journal of

Educational Research, 73, 183194. Google Scholar CrossRef

Gaertner B. M., Spinrad T. L., Eisenberg N. (2008). Focused attention in toddlers:

Measurement, stability, and relations to negative emotion and parenting. Infant and Child
Development, 363, 339363. Google Scholar CrossRef

Godwin K., Fisher A. (2011). Allocation of attention in classroom environments:

Consequences for learning. In Carlson L., Hlscher C., Shipley T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 28062811). Austin,
TX: Cognitive Science Society. Google Scholar

Godwin K., Fisher A. (2012, August). Do young children habituate to their classroom
environment? Paper presented at the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Society, Sapporo, Japan. Abstract retrieved
from http://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2012/papers/0512/index.html Google Scholar

Henderson J., Ferreira F. (2004). In the interface of language, vision, and action: Eye
movements and the visual world. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Google Scholar

Higgins A. T., Turnure J. E. (1984). Distractibility and concentration of attention in childrens

development. Child Development, 55, 17991810. Google Scholar CrossRef

Humphrey M. M. (1982). Childrens avoidance of environmental, simple task internal, and

complex task internal distracters. Child Development, 53, 736765. Google Scholar

Just M., Carpenter P. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology,
8, 441480. Google Scholar CrossRef

Kane M. J., Engle R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity,
executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual differences perspective.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 637671. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
Kannass K. N., Colombo J. (2007). The effects of continuous and intermittent distraction on
attention and cognitive performance in preschoolers. Journal of Cognition and Development,
8, 6377. Google Scholar CrossRef

Karweit N., Slavin R. (1981). Measurement and modeling choices in studies of time and
learning. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 157171. Google Scholar Link

Luna B. (2009). Developmental changes in cognitive control through adolescence. In Bauer

P. (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 37, pp. 233278). Oxford,
England: Academic Press. Google Scholar CrossRef

McKinney J. D., Mason J., Perkerson K., Clifford M. (1975). Relationship between
classroom behavior and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
67, 198203. Google Scholar CrossRef

Montessori M. (1949). The absorbent mind. Adyar, India: The Theosophical Publishing
House. Google Scholar

Oakes L. M., Kannass K. N., Shaddy D. J. (2002). Developmental changes in endogenous

control of attention: The role of target familiarity on infants distraction latencies. Child
Development, 73, 16441655.Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline

Reisberg D. (1978). Looking where you listen: Visual cues and auditory attention. Acta
Psychologica, 42, 331341. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline

Roberge D., Rojas A., Baker R. (2012). Does the length of time off-task
matter? In Buckingham Shum S., Gasevic D., Ferguson R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 234237). New York,
NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2330601.2330657 Google
Scholar CrossRef

Rockwell A., Jenkins S. (2001). Bugs are insects (Lets-Read-and-Find-Out Science 1). New
York, NY: HarperCollins.

Ruff H. A., Capozzoli M. C. (2003). Development of attention and distractibility in the first 4
years of life. Developmental Psychology, 39, 877890. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline

Ruff H. A., Rothbart M. K. (2001). Attention in early development: Themes and

variations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar CrossRef

Saffran J. R., Aslin R. N., Newport E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants.
Science, 274, 19261928. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline

Tarr P. (2004). Consider the walls. Young Children, 59(3), 15. Retrieved
from http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200405/ConsidertheWalls.pdf. Google Scholar
Thompson S. D., Raisor J. M. (2013). Meeting the sensory needs of young children. Young
Children, 68(2), 3443. Google Scholar

Yu C., Smith L. B. (2012). Embodied attention and word learning by toddlers. Cognition,
125, 244262. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline