Visual Environment, Attention Allocation, and Learning in Young Children: When Too Much of a Good Thing May Be Bad

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 children's 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.

Full text

http://pss.sagepub.com/
Psychological Science
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/20/0956797614533801
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0956797614533801
published online 21 May 2014Psychological Science
Anna V. Fisher, Karrie E. Godwin and Howard Seltman
Thing May Be Bad
Visual Environment, Attention Allocation, and Learning in Young Children: When Too Much of a Good
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association for Psychological Science
can be found at:Psychological ScienceAdditional services and information for
http://pss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://pss.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- May 21, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Psychological Science
1 –9
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0956797614533801
pss.sagepub.com
Research Article
Many researchers have suggested that focused attention
is crucially important for learning throughout life—from
the crib to the classroom and beyond (e.g., Fisher,
Thiessen, Godwin, Kloos, & Dickerson, 2013; Gaertner,
Spinrad, & Eisenberg, 2008; McKinney, Mason, Perkerson,
& Clifford, 1975; Oakes, Kannass, & Shaddy, 2002; Ruff &
Rothbart, 2001; Yu & Smith, 2012): “If attention were con-
stantly reoriented to every new event, it would be diffi-
cult . . . to learn about any single object or event” (Oakes
et al., 2002, p. 1644). With respect to student achieve-
ment, this idea has been formalized in the time-on-task
hypothesis: All else being equal, the more opportunities
one has to learn (i.e., the longer one focuses on an activ-
ity), the better the learning outcomes (Bloom, 1976;
Carroll, 1963).
In this study, we investigated whether the classroom
visual environment can affect attention allocation and
thereby affect learning in kindergarten children. It is well
documented that distractibility decreases markedly with
age (DeMarie-Dreblow & Miller, 1988; Higgins & Turnure,
1984; Humphrey, 1982; Ruff & Capozzoli, 2003). For
example, the presence of extraneous stimulation during
discrimination or memory tasks has been shown to
impair performance of preschoolers and first and second
graders, but not that of sixth graders (Higgins & Turnure,
1984; Humphrey, 1982). Furthermore, decrements in per-
formance occur whether extraneous stimulation is audi-
tory (e.g., noise in the hallway) or visual (e.g., a large
mirror placed next to a child’s desk; Higgins & Turnure,
1984).
Developmental decrease in distractibility is commonly
attributed to developmental improvements in inhibitory
control and working memory. Specifically, maintaining
focused attention requires inhibition of orienting to irrel-
evant objects and events (Colombo & Cheatham, 2006;
Kane & Engle, 2002; Ruff & Rothbart, 2001) and active
maintenance of task goals (Colombo & Cheatham, 2006;
Kane & Engle, 2002). Both of these processes have been
shown to undergo protracted development extending
into late adolescence and early adulthood (for reviews,
see Diamond, 2006; Luna, 2009).
Therefore, maintaining focused attention in classroom
environments that contain extraneous visual displays
533801PSSXXX10.1177/0956797614533801Fisher et al.Visual Environment, Attention Allocation, and Learning
research-article2014
Corresponding Author:
Anna V. Fisher, Carnegie Mellon University, Department of
Psychology, 335-I Baker Hall, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213
E-mail: fisher49@andrew.cmu.edu
Visual Environment, Attention Allocation,
and Learning in Young Children: When
Too Much of a Good Thing May Be Bad
Anna V. Fisher1, Karrie E. Godwin1, and Howard Seltman2
1Department of Psychology and 2Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
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 children’s
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.
Keywords
attention, learning, cognitive development, self-control, educational psychology, open data
Received 12/4/13; Revision accepted 3/12/14
Psychological Science OnlineFirst, published on May 21, 2014 as doi:10.1177/0956797614533801
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Fisher et al.
may be particularly challenging for young children
because visual features in the classroom may tax their
still-developing and fragile ability to actively maintain
task goals and ignore distractions. In fact, the relationship
between student age and typical classroom design is
somewhat paradoxical: Younger learners (e.g., kinder-
garten and elementary school students) are often placed
in learning environments that are rich with potential
sources of distraction (e.g., colorful educational materials
and other visual displays). This problem is compounded
by the fact that kindergarten and elementary school stu-
dents typically receive the majority of instruction in a
single classroom (i.e., they do not have a specialized
classroom for each subject area as is common in middle
and high school). Therefore, students are exposed to
large amounts of visual materials that are not relevant for
the ongoing instruction. Consider this description of a
typical elementary school classroom:
One spring day, as I observed a student teach a
science lesson to a group of 25 first-graders, my
gaze wandered around the room. From a small
chair in a corner, I counted 19 different, decorated,
scalloped borders segmenting portions of the
bulletin boards lining the walls. The boards were
filled with words: a word wall, class rules, calendar,
alphabets, numbers, shapes, and colors, and a
plethora of cartoon people and animals . . . . St.
Patrick’s Day mobiles created from brightly painted
rainbows and black-line masters hung from the
ceiling just above the children’s heads . . . . (Tarr,
2004, p. 1)
Such visual environments have been described as
“visual bombardment” (Bullard, 2010, p. 110) and a
“cacophony of imagery” (Tarr, 2004, p. 1).1 Some educa-
tors warn against excessive use of sensory stimulation in
primary-grade classrooms (e.g., Tarr, 2004; Thompson &
Raisor, 2013). Montessori (1949) encouraged teachers of
young children to have sparsely decorated classrooms, a
practice that continues in Montessori classrooms today.
However, no studies have yet directly examined the pos-
sible effects of the classroom visual environment on
young children’s attention allocation and learning out-
comes. Our goal in the present study was to address the
following research questions. First, do irrelevant visual
displays affect attention allocation in kindergarten stu-
dents? Second, do irrelevant visual displays affect kinder-
garteners’ learning? On the basis of literature suggesting
protracted maturation of the ability to inhibit distracters
and maintain task goals (e.g., Diamond, 2006; Luna, 2009),
we predicted that visual displays not relevant to the ongo-
ing instruction may decrease focused attention and
thereby decrease learning gains in kindergarten students.
The research reported here was conducted in a labo-
ratory adjacent to a university laboratory school.
Kindergarten children were brought into the laboratory
classroom for six lessons. Instruction consisted of a short
period in which the teacher read aloud from a book
(hereafter called a read-aloud), which is a common
instructional activity in kindergarten. Children received
three lessons in the decorated-classroom condition and
three lessons in the sparse-classroom condition.
Immediately after each lesson, paper-and-pencil assess-
ments were administered to measure learning of the les-
son content.
All lessons were videotaped for coding episodes in
which children became distracted (off-task behavior) and
episodes in which they were engaged with the teacher or
learning materials (i.e., the book; on-task behavior).
Engagement was determined by the direction of gaze.
Eye gaze is a common measure of visual attention (for
reviews, see Henderson & Ferreira, 2004; Just & Carpenter,
1976) and has also been used as a measure of auditory
attention (e.g., Reisberg, 1978; Saffran, Aslin, & Newport,
1996). Although it is possible that students listen to the
teacher while looking elsewhere, doing so by definition
constitutes divided attention rather than focused atten-
tion. Therefore, in instructional contexts that involve
visual materials, direction of eye gaze is a reasonable
(albeit imperfect) measure of focused attention and on-
task behavior.
Method
Participants
Participants were 24 kindergarten students (12 girls, 12
boys; mean age = 5.37 years). To prevent overcrowding
in the laboratory classroom, we used stratified random
assignment to create two groups matched on age and
gender (Group 1: n = 12; 6 girls, 6 boys; mean age = 5.37
years; Group 2: n = 12; 6 girls, 6 boys; mean age = 5.39
years). One child was absent during four of the six les-
sons; consequently, this child’s data were excluded from
our analyses.
All participants were recruited from the same kinder-
garten classroom in a laboratory school on the campus of
a private university in a Midwestern city in the United
States. Participants were predominantly White (74%
White, 26% minority) and predominantly from house-
holds with high socioeconomic status.
Design
The study took place in a research laboratory modified to
look like a classroom. In the decorated-classroom condi-
tion, the laboratory classroom was furnished with
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Visual Environment, Attention Allocation, and Learning 3
potential sources of visual distraction commonly found in
primary classrooms (e.g., science posters, maps, the chil-
dren’s own artwork provided by their teacher; Fig. 1a).
All commercial materials were purchased from educa-
tional supply stores. In the sparse-classroom condition,
all materials irrelevant to ongoing instruction were
removed (Fig. 1b). The classroom visual environment
was a within-subjects factor. Dependent measures were
the amount of time children spent off task and the learn-
ing outcomes as determined by the paper-and-pencil
assessments. The order of testing in the sparse and deco-
rated classrooms was alternated to mitigate temporal
confounds: The first lesson was in the sparse-classroom
condition, and the order of conditions was alternated
thereafter.
Procedure
Both groups participated in five familiarization sessions.
We used the familiarization sessions (a) to acquaint par-
ticipants with the teacher (i.e., research assistant) and
assessment procedures (i.e., paper-and-pencil tests) and
(b) to administer pretest assessments. During the famil-
iarization sessions, the laboratory classroom contained a
moderate amount of irrelevant visual materials. After the
familiarization sessions, children participated in six
experimental sessions (i.e., the six science lessons).
Lessons. Children participated in six lessons over a
2-week period. Lessons consisted of 5- to 7-min
read-alouds. Lesson topics were plate tectonics, stone
tools, volcanoes, solar system, bugs, and flight (see Fig.
2a for sample lesson content). The children’s kindergar-
ten teacher was interviewed before the study to ensure
that participants had not received formal instruction on
any of these topics during the current school year. The
lesson topics were selected to align with the major
domains covered in elementary science education and
the academic standards for elementary science education
specified by the Pennsylvania Department of Education
(for details about the lessons and books, see Lesson Con-
tent and Creation of Custom-Made Books in the Supple-
mental Material available online).
During the lessons, the children sat on carpet squares
in a semicircle facing the teacher. The seating arrange-
ment was randomly assigned at the beginning of the
study and remained constant throughout (i.e., the seating
arrangement was similar to the stable seating arrange-
ment participants experienced in their own kindergarten
classroom). All lessons were conducted by a female
researcher who was blind to the hypotheses and who
had prior experience with early childhood education. As
is typical for read-alouds with children of this age, the
researcher sat on the floor facing the children and read
from a book. After reading each two-page spread, she
showed the children the illustrations in the book by mov-
ing the book slowly across the semicircle. A book was
created for each of the six lesson topics. The researcher
was instructed to conduct the lessons the way she typi-
cally would for children of this age.
Fig. 1. Panoramic view of the laboratory classroom in (a) the decorated-classroom condition and (b) the sparse-classroom condition.
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Fisher et al.
Assessments. Pretest assessments were administered dur-
ing the five familiarization sessions. Children were given an
assessment workbook, and the teacher read each question
aloud and asked the children to select the correct answer
from four pictorial response options. Seventy questions
were administered during the pretests (13 to 15 questions
during each of the five familiarization sessions). The pre-
sentation order of the pretest questions was randomized.
Thirty-six pretest questions (six per science lesson)
were selected for the posttest assessments. Item selection
was based on pretest accuracy: For each lesson, the six
items with the lowest rate of accuracy on the pretest
were included in the posttest. The mean pretest accuracy
for the selected questions was 22.7%, not different from
chance, one-sample t(22) = 1.10, n.s.
To equalize pretest performance between the sparse-
classroom condition and the decorated-classroom
condition, we divided the six science lessons into two
groups on the basis of pretest accuracy (i.e., higher vs.
lower pretest accuracy). We then pseudo-randomly
assigned lessons from the two groups into the two
experimental conditions, with the restriction that a single
condition could not contain all lessons with higher or
lower pretest accuracy scores. Using this procedure, the
following three lessons were assigned to the sparse-
classroom condition: plate tectonics, volcanoes, and
bugs. The remaining three lessons—stone tools, solar
system, and flight—were assigned to the decorated-
classroom condition.
A posttest assessment was administered at the end of
each lesson. Each assessment workbook included six
questions pertaining to the completed lesson. The proce-
dure for administering the posttest assessments was iden-
tical to that used in the pretests. Specifically, the children
were asked to select the correct answer from four picto-
rial response options (one correct answer and three
lures). All response options were novel (i.e., four pictures
the children had not seen during the lesson) to ensure
that the children were not merely selecting a familiar
answer (see Fig. 2b for a sample assessment item).
Coding. Four coders who were blind to the hypotheses
were trained by the second author using vignettes, video-
tapes, and live observations. An event-sampling strategy
was used to code children’s behavior during the lessons:
Coders first classified behavior as on or off task on the
basis of the direction of the children’s eye gaze. On-task
behavior was defined as looking at the teacher or the
instructional materials. If the child was classified as exhib-
iting off-task behavior, the distraction source was identi-
fied using a coding scheme developed in pilot
observations in a kindergarten classroom. Distractions
were categorized as follows: self-distraction (i.e., engage-
ment with one’s own body or clothing), peer distraction
(i.e., engagement with another child), environmental dis-
traction (i.e., engagement with classroom materials irrel-
evant for ongoing instruction), or other (i.e., off-task
behaviors that did not clearly align with any other cate-
gory). If the child was engaged in simultaneous off-task
behaviors, the primary distraction source was determined
by direction of eye gaze.
The coders marked the onset and cessation of each
off-task behavior to determine the frequency and dura-
tion of off-task behaviors. To estimate interrater reliabil-
ity, we calculated Cohen’s kappa (Cohen, 1960) for a
subset (20%) of observations. Kappa was .74, a level of
reliability that was in line with past observations of class-
room off-task behavior and that approached the .75
threshold considered excellent in the field of classroom
observations (Fleiss, 1981).
Fig. 2. Sample (a) content and (b) assessment question from the bug
lesson. The story content was obtained in part from Rockwell and
Jenkins (2001). All text was presented verbally by the teacher.
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Visual Environment, Attention Allocation, and Learning 5
Results
Effect of classroom type on time
spent off task
In the two experimental conditions combined, children
were on task for 66.5% of instructional time. This per-
centage of time on task is in line with that reported in
previous research (i.e., children were on task for between
57% and 88% of instructional time; Karweit & Slavin,
1981). Therefore, in the present experiment, the teacher
successfully engaged the children in the learning activity.
At the same time, the rate of off-task behavior varied as a
function of condition. The overall percentage of instruc-
tional time spent off task was significantly greater when
children were in the decorated classroom (M = 38.58%,
SD = 10.49) than when they were in the sparse classroom
(M = 28.42%, SD = 13.19), paired-sample t(22) = 4.90, p <
.0001; this effect was large, Cohen’s d = 0.85.
To examine the possibility that the effects reported
here were driven by a minority of participants who were
particularly sensitive to visual displays, we calculated a
difference score for each child by subtracting the per-
centage of time spent attending to the environment in the
decorated classroom from the percentage of time spent
attending to the environment in the sparse classroom.
Difference scores ranged from 2% to 36%, with a mean of
17% (SD = 9). Few children (n = 3, 13% of the sample)
had difference scores below 10% and thus presumably
were minimally affected by the visual displays in the dec-
orated classroom. However, most children (n = 20, 87%
of the sample) had difference scores that exceeded 10%,
which is contrary to the possibility that the observed
effects were driven by a minority of participants.
Next, we examined whether the duration of time allo-
cated to each distraction subtype differed as a function of
condition. In the sparse-classroom condition, the chil-
dren spent only 3.21% of instructional time engaged in
environmental distractions, whereas in the decorated-
classroom condition, they spent 20.56% of instructional
time engaged in environmental distractions; this differ-
ence was significant, paired-sample t(22) = 8.78, p <
.0001, and the effect was large, Cohen’s d = −2.60. In
contrast, the children spent significantly more time
engaging in self-distraction and peer distraction in the
sparse classroom than they did in the decorated class-
room, both paired-sample ts(22) > 2.75, ps < .012 (Fig. 3).
In both conditions, the children spent less than 1% of
instructional time engaged in other distractions.
Effect of classroom type on learning
Pretest accuracy was statistically equivalent in the sparse-
classroom condition (M = 22%) and the decorated-class-
room condition (M = 23%), paired-samples t(22) < 1, and
accuracy in both conditions was not different from
chance, both one-sample ts (22) < 1.3, ps > .21. The chil-
dren’s posttest scores were significantly higher than their
pretest scores in both experimental conditions, both
paired-samples ts(22) > 4.72, ps ≤ .0001 (Fig. 4). Therefore,
in both experimental conditions, the children success-
fully learned from the instruction. However, their learn-
ing scores were higher in the sparse-classroom condition
(M = 55%) than in the decorated-classroom condition
(M = 42%), paired-samples t(22) = 2.95, p = .007; this
effect was of medium size, Cohen’s d = 0.65.
Analysis of gain scores corroborated the results of the
analysis of the posttest scores. Gain scores were calcu-
lated by subtracting each participant’s pretest score from
his or her posttest score. Pairwise comparisons indicated
that the children’s learning gains were higher in the
sparse-classroom condition (M = 33%, SD = 22) than in
the decorated-classroom condition (M = 18%, SD = 19),
paired-sample t(22) = 3.49, p = .002, Cohen’s d = 0.73.
The relation between time spent off
task and learning
First, we examined the relation between time spent off
task and learning outcomes. For this analysis, we
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Sparse-Classroom
Condition
Decorated-Classroom
Condition
Percentage of Time
Self
Peer
Environment
Other
Fig. 3. Percentage of time spent off task as a function of condition and
distraction subtype. Error bars represent ±1 SEM.
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Fisher et al.
averaged each child’s time off task and posttest scores
across the decorated-classroom and sparse-classroom
conditions to derive measures of total time off task and
total learning. These scores were negatively correlated:
Children who spent more time off task tended to have
lower learning scores, r = −.500, p = .015 (Fig. 5).
Next, we conducted a mediation analysis to examine
the relations among classroom environment, time spent
off task, and learning outcomes. This analysis indicated
that time spent off task significantly mediated the relation
between classroom condition (decorated vs. sparse) and
learning scores, p = .011 (see Details of the Mediation
Analysis in the Supplemental Material). This finding sug-
gests that the observed effects stem from the following
pathway: Classroom type affected the children’s attention
allocation (they spent more time off task when the class-
room was highly decorated than when it was not
decorated), and time off task reduced learning of the les-
son content.
Discussion
The present study yielded several novel findings. First, the
pattern of focused attention in kindergarten children
changed as a function of the classroom visual environ-
ment. When placed in a decorated classroom, the children
were more likely to be distracted by the visual environ-
ment, and when placed in a sparse classroom, they were
more likely to be distracted by themselves or by peers.
Second, the classroom visual environment affected the
overall amount of time the children spent off task: They
spent significantly more instructional time off task in the
decorated-classroom condition than in the sparse-classroom
condition. More than 85% of the children in the sample
showed this effect. Third, although the children learned
from the instruction in both conditions, learning scores were
higher in the sparse-classroom condition than in the deco-
rated-classroom condition. Fourth, there was a negative
relationship between the total amount of time the children
spent off task and learning: The more time a given child
spent off task, the less that child learned. Finally, time off
task mediated the relationship between classroom type
and learning: The decorated classroom led to greater time
off task than the sparse classroom, and greater time off
task in turn led to reduced learning.
Although previous research has established a relation-
ship between focused attention and task performance
(e.g., Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996;
Kannass & Colombo, 2007), our study is the first (to our
knowledge) to experimentally induce lower or higher
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sparse-Classroom Condition Decorated-Classroom Condition
Percentage Correct
Pretest Posttest
*
*
*
Chance
Fig. 4. Percentage of correct answers on the pretest and the posttest as a function of experimental
condition. Error bars represent ±1 SEM. Asterisks indicate significant differences (p < .01).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0% 20% 40%60% 80%
Total Time Off Task
Total Learning Score
Fig. 5. Scatter plot showing total time off task as a function of total
learning score.
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Visual Environment, Attention Allocation, and Learning 7
levels of off-task behavior in the same group of children
and to reveal corresponding changes in learning out-
comes in a naturalistic setting. Therefore, these findings
provide support to the time-on-task theory of learning in
academic settings (Carroll, 1963). Although a large num-
ber of correlational studies have provided evidence for
this theory (e.g., Frederick & Walberg, 1980; Roberge,
Rojas, & Baker, 2012), the present findings provide the
first supporting experimental evidence.
Results from the present study suggest that the visual
environment plays a role in how young children allocate
their attention during instruction. Susceptibility to envi-
ronmental distractors is probably affected by individual
characteristics of the learner. For example, children with
less-developed inhibitory control may be particularly sus-
ceptible to environmental distractors. Further research is
necessary to explore the relations among individual dif-
ferences, time on task, and learning. We are not advocat-
ing sterilizing the learning environments of young
children by removing all decorations, artwork, or educa-
tional displays. The reported results serve as a proof of
concept that the classroom visual environment can
induce changes in attention allocation and learning out-
comes in kindergarten children. However, further
research is needed to examine the optimal level of visual
stimulation in primary-grade classrooms to develop evi-
dence-based guidelines for classroom design.
In contemplating the possible practical implications of
the reported findings, it is important to consider several
issues. First, how robust are the reported effects? This
article builds on our prior work, which yielded similar
findings (Godwin & Fisher, 2011). In both studies, we
observed an increase in total time off task in the deco-
rated classroom compared with the sparse classroom and
higher learning scores in the sparse classroom compared
with the decorated classroom. These similar results were
obtained despite methodological differences between the
two studies. For instance, in the present study, lessons
were assigned to conditions on the basis of pretest accu-
racy rates. In contrast, in our prior study, the same les-
sons were completed in both classroom environments by
different groups of children (e.g., half of the children
completed the stone-tools lesson in the decorated-class-
room condition and the remaining children completed
the stone-tools lesson in the sparse-classroom condition).
Therefore, the current findings are sufficiently robust to
have been observed across two separate studies that var-
ied whether a lesson was completed by all children in the
same type of classroom (the present study) or was com-
pleted in both classroom types (sparse and decorated)
but by different groups of children.
Second, in the present study, we alternated the deco-
rated- and sparse-classroom conditions to mitigate tem-
poral confounds. However, this design may have led the
children to be surprised at the frequent changes in the
classroom visual environment, thus amplifying the pos-
sible detrimental effect of the decorated-classroom con-
dition on attention allocation and learning. A related
concern is that in real classrooms, students are exposed
to the same visual environment every day and may there-
fore habituate to the visual environment. In a recent
study, we videotaped groups of kindergarten children
who received instruction in a decorated classroom every
day for 2 weeks (Godwin & Fisher, 2012). Before receiv-
ing instruction in the decorated classroom, the children
participated in a weeklong series of lessons in a sparse
classroom, which served as a baseline. In the sparse
classroom, the children spent 29% of instructional time
off task. Off-task behavior in the decorated classroom
was significantly greater in both Week 1 (48% of time
spent off task) and Week 2 (46% of time spent off task).
It is possible that greater habituation might occur with
longer exposure. Nevertheless, these findings indicate
that young children often find visual displays distracting,
even after multiple consecutive exposures.
Finally, it is unclear whether our findings can be gen-
eralized to children in grades beyond kindergarten. There
is some indirect evidence that they can. Barrett, Zhang,
Moffat, and Kobbacy (2013) examined the relationship
between several environmental factors and student
achievement in primary school students in the United
Kingdom; most students in the study were between the
ages of 3 and 11 years. The researchers found that a num-
ber of school- and classroom-level factors were related to
children’s achievement scores, even when controlling for
the contribution of socioeconomic status. For example,
achievement scores were positively associated with the
amount of natural light and air quality in classrooms. The
authors initially hypothesized that greater amounts of
color in a classroom should correspond to better achieve-
ment, which would be consistent with the pervasive belief
that primary classrooms need to provide sensory stimula-
tion. In contrast, Barrett et al. found that classroom color
ratings were negatively related to achievement scores.
The present findings provide a theoretical framework for
interpreting this surprising outcome. Specifically, colorful
visual displays may promote off-task behavior in young
children, resulting in reduced learning opportunities and
achievement. It remains to be assessed experimentally
whether our current findings generalize to older children.
Nevertheless, our findings and those reported by Barrett
et al. suggest that the classroom visual environment can
be optimized to promote on-task behavior and to improve
learning outcomes in elementary school students.
Author Contributions
A. V. Fisher was responsible for the conceptualization of the
study and contributed to study design and data analyses. K. E.
Godwin contributed to the conceptualization and design of the
study and to data analyses, and she created the study materials
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 Fisher et al.
and trained the coders. H. Seltman conducted the mediation
analysis. All authors contributed to the writing of the
manuscript.
Acknowledgments
We thank Malika Sinha, Megan Petroccia, Jessica Meeks, Laura
Pacilio, Amy Barrett, Helen Kim, and Jae-Won Kim for their
help collecting and coding video data. We thank Peter Scupelli
and Kevin Kan for taking the photographs presented in Figure
1. We thank Paulo Carvalho for his feedback on the reported
study. We thank the children, parents, teachers, and administra-
tors of the Children’s School at Carnegie Mellon University who
made this project possible.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Funding
This work was supported by Grant R305A110444 from the
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, and
by Graduate Training Grant R305B090023, awarded to Carnegie
Mellon University by the Department of Education. The opin-
ions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent
views of the Institute of Education Sciences or the Department
of Education.
Supplemental Material
Additional supporting information may be found at http://pss
.sagepub.com/content/by/supplemental-data
Open Practices
All data have been made publicly available via Dryad and can
be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.d2441. There
was no preregistration of the data analyses in a public open-
access repository. However, a data-analysis plan was submit-
ted in a grant proposal (Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education, Grant R305A110444) before data col-
lection and analyses. The complete Open Practices Disclosure
for this article can be found at http://pss.sagepub.com/content/
by/supplemental-data. This article has received the badge for
Open Data. More information about the Open Practices badges
can be found at https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki/view/ and http://pss
.sagepub.com/content/25/1/3.full.
Note
1. Examples of highly decorated primary-school classrooms can
be obtained by a simple Internet search (e.g., using “kindergar-
ten classroom” or “primary classroom” as search terms).
References
Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J., & Kobbacy, K. (2013). A holis-
tic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom
design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59,
678–689.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learn-
ing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bullard, J. (2010). Creating environments for learning: Birth to
age eight. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers
College Record, 64, 723–733.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
Colombo, J., & Cheatham, C. L. (2006). The emergence and basis
of endogenous attention in infancy and early childhood. In
R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior
(Vol. 34, pp. 283–310). Oxford, England: Academic Press.
Craik, F. I. M., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson,
N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encod-
ing and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159–180.
DeMarie-Dreblow, D., & Miller, P. H. (1988). The development
of children’s strategies for selective attention: Evidence for
a transitional period. Child Development, 59, 1504–1513.
Diamond, A. (2006). The early development of executive func-
tions. In E. Bialystok & F. Craik (Eds.), Lifespan cognition:
Mechanisms of change (pp. 70–95). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Fisher, A. V., Thiessen, E. D., Godwin, K. E., Kloos, H., &
Dickerson, J. P. (2013). Assessing selective sustained atten-
tion in 3- to 5-year-old children: Evidence from a new
paradigm. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114,
275–294.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Frederick, W. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1980). Learning as a func-
tion of time. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 183–194.
Gaertner, B. M., Spinrad, T. L., & Eisenberg, N. (2008). Focused
attention in toddlers: Measurement, stability, and rela-
tions to negative emotion and parenting. Infant and Child
Development, 363, 339–363.
Godwin, K., & Fisher, A. (2011). Allocation of attention in
classroom environments: Consequences for learning. In L.
Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the
33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
(pp. 2806–2811). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
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
Henderson, J., & Ferreira, F. (2004). In the interface of lan-
guage, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual
world. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Higgins, A. T., & Turnure, J. E. (1984). Distractibility and con-
centration of attention in children’s development. Child
Development, 55, 1799–1810.
Humphrey, M. M. (1982). Children’s avoidance of environmen-
tal, simple task internal, and complex task internal distract-
ers. Child Development, 53, 736–765.
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive
processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441–480.
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Visual Environment, Attention Allocation, and Learning 9
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex
in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and gen-
eral fluid intelligence: An individual differences perspec-
tive. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 637–671.
Kannass, K. N., & Colombo, J. (2007). The effects of continu-
ous and intermittent distraction on attention and cognitive
performance in preschoolers. Journal of Cognition and
Development, 8, 63–77.
Karweit, N., & Slavin, R. (1981). Measurement and model-
ing choices in studies of time and learning. American
Educational Research Journal, 18, 157–171.
Luna, B. (2009). Developmental changes in cognitive control
through adolescence. In P. Bauer (Ed.), Advances in child
development and behavior (Vol. 37, pp. 233–278). Oxford,
England: Academic Press.
McKinney, J. D., Mason, J., Perkerson, K., & Clifford, M. (1975).
Relationship between classroom behavior and academic
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67,
198–203.
Montessori, M. (1949). The absorbent mind. Adyar, India: The
Theosophical Publishing House.
Oakes, L. M., Kannass, K. N., & Shaddy, D. J. (2002).
Developmental changes in endogenous control of atten-
tion: The role of target familiarity on infants’ distraction
latencies. Child Development, 73, 1644–1655.
Reisberg, D. (1978). Looking where you listen: Visual cues and
auditory attention. Acta Psychologica, 42, 331–341.
Roberge, D., Rojas, A., & Baker, R. (2012). Does the length of
time off-task matter? In S. Buckingham Shum, D. Gasevic,
& R. Ferguson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp.
234–237). New York, NY: Association for Computing
Machinery. doi:10.1145/2330601.2330657
Rockwell, A., & Jenkins, S. (2001). Bugs are insects (Let’s-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, 877–890.
Ruff, H. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Attention in early devel-
opment: Themes and variations. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical
learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.
Tarr, P. (2004). Consider the walls. Young Children, 59(3), 1–5.
Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200405/
ConsidertheWalls.pdf.
Thompson, S. D., & Raisor, J. M. (2013). Meeting the sensory
needs of young children. Young Children, 68(2), 34–43.
Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2012). Embodied attention and word
learning by toddlers. Cognition, 125, 244–262.
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on May 28, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from