Effect of Music on Reading Comprehension

Effect of Music on Reading Comprehension of JuniorHigh School Students

Stacey A. Anderson and Gerald B. FullerWalden University

This quantitative study was an investigation of the effect of lyrical music on readingcomprehension by adolescents. Existing research has produced results that range fromconcluding such distraction may be detrimental to finding it could be helpful. Thereading comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, 4th edition(MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, & Dryer, 2000) was administered to 334 7th- and8th-grade students. Testing was conducted under two conditions: a nonmusic environ-ment, and with accompanying music comprising Billboard Magazine’s (2006) top hitsingles. Following the music portion of the test, students completed a survey to assessany preference for or against listening to music while studying. Results of an analysisof variance showed performance declined significantly when listening to music. A pointbiserial correlation illustrated a pronounced detrimental effect on comprehension forstudents exhibiting a stronger preference for listening to music while studying. Resultsare important for understanding influences on study habits, with the goal of helpingeducators and school psychologists design support systems tailored to the needs ofadolescents.

Keywords: reading comprehension, music, popular lyrical music, junior high school students,adolescents

One of the challenges of modern educationalreform, as posited in scholarly literature (Lut-trell & Parker, 2001; Rothstein & Jacobson,2006) and the popular press, is to improve thebasic literacy of children and adolescents. How-ever, scores on national achievement tests indi-cate students in recent years did not performsignificantly better than did students in pastdecades (Schneider, 2007). This is the case de-spite numerous attempts by educators to im-prove student reading and writing through ap-proaches that have ranged from changing thephysical conditions of the classroom (Hong,Milgram, & Rowell, 2004) to increasing stu-dents’ motivation (Irwin, 2003) or their capacityfor self-regulation (Raffaelli, Crockett, & Shen,2005), to using music to promote adolescentidentity development (Boehnke, Munch, &Hoffmann, 2002).

The purpose of the present study was to ex-plore what impact, if any, listening to popularlyrical music while concurrently performing acognitively complex task might have on stu-dents’ comprehension of study material, andthus indirectly on basic literacy. Students oftenclaim they can study effectively while listeningto music (Patton, Stinard, & Routh, 1983). Atthe same time, concerned educators and parentsintuitively believe listening to music might cre-ate a distraction that could interfere with com-prehension. In fact, research results are mixed.Oswald, Tremblay, and Jones (2000) found asignificant deterioration in reading comprehen-sion when distracters such as music or speechwere present, whereas Hallam, Price, and Kat-sarou (2002) reported a beneficial effect. Boyleand Coltheart (1996) and Pool, Koolstra, andVan Der Voort (2003) claimed no clear effect ofmusic or verbal noise on performance. Thepresent study addressed these issues by testingthree hypotheses: (a) a difference exists be-tween reading comprehension scores completedin the environment without music and scoresobtained with lyrical music playing in the back-ground; (b) a gender difference exists regardingthe reading comprehension scores completed in

Stacey A. Anderson and Gerald B. Fuller, College ofSocial and Behavioral Sciences, School of Psychology,Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Stacey A. Anderson, 11311 Stephanie Drive,Yuma, AZ 85367. E-mail: [email protected]

School Psychology Quarterly © 2010 American Psychological Association2010, Vol. 25, No. 3, 178–187 1045-3830/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021213

178

the environment without music and scores ob-tained with background music; and (c) a rela-tionship exists between degree of preference forstudying with music and scores obtained on areading comprehension test completed in eitherthe environment without music or with musicplaying in the background.

Background

Researchers who have investigated the ef-fects of sound on comprehension have ap-proached the problem from a variety of perspec-tives (Weinstein & Weinstein, 1979). A reviewof relevant literature reveals two opposing the-oretical perspectives with respect to the ques-tion of whether background music necessarilydistracts from cognitive tasks. Although manyempirical studies appear to support the positionthat distraction is likely, at least to some extent,the opposite perspective thus far has not beenconclusively discounted.

According to neuropsychological research,when an individual listens to music, the brainprocesses the lyrics and melodies independently(Besson, Faıta, Peretz, Bonnel, & Requin,1998). This lends support to the notion that notonly are these two types of listening competitivefunctions, but they are likely to compete withadditional demands on the brain, such as thoseposed by studying. Similarly, the limited capac-ity model (Broadbent, 1958) has been cited as aframework to explain the negative effects ofcompetitive tasks on concentration. Proponentsof the limited capacity model argue that at-tempting to carry out two tasks that draw oninherently limited cognitive resources will workto the detriment of one or both (Pool et al.,2003). Pool et al. argued that attempting toaccomplish two tasks simultaneously exceeds aperson’s capacity for attention, while otherscontended that the decisive factor is not whetherthe cognitive capacity is exceeded, but ratherthat performance declines when both tasks in-volve processing the same types of information(Bourke, Duncan, & Nimmo-Smith, 1996).

Various studies of reading comprehension inthe presence of distractions have focused onunderstanding the cognitive and/or emotionalprocesses that occur while listening to music.Oswald et al. (2000) studied the disruptive ef-fects of meaningful and meaningless speech oncomprehension. Both types of speech were

found to be equally disruptive, suggesting thatdistraction by speech may have complex ele-ments, leading to a significant difference be-tween distraction resulting from listening andthat resulting from merely hearing. In terms ofadolescents studying with background music,the findings by Oswald et al. suggest studentsmay attend to lyrics discriminately, varyingtheir attention when listening to familiar versusunfamiliar lyrics, or to preferred musical artistsversus those in which they have less interest.

Many of the relevant studies provide onlyweak support for the idea that music can bedistracting to students. For example, Boyle andColtheart (1996) investigated the degree towhich irrelevant sounds disrupted reading com-prehension and short-term memory tasks, andfound lyrical as well as instrumental music af-fected performance of both types of tasks neg-atively, but not significantly. Paulhus, Aks, andCoren (1990) found a clear correlation betweenvisual and auditory distractibility, but no rela-tionship between either type of distractibilityand performance. These researchers suggestedadolescents’ responses to music may reflect theemotions invoked by music, rather than serve asproof music is a direct distraction.

Pool et al. (2003) did not find support for thehypothesis that music interferes with learningwhen they looked at soap operas as the disrup-tive variable in a study of 8th-grade readingcomprehension. They reported that when stu-dents only heard the audio of an episode, theywere not distracted, suggesting sound poses lesscompetition than does visual imagery duringcomprehension tasks. This raises the question ofwhether the type of music selected influencesthe extent to which the music itself arousesattention. Furnham and colleagues also failed tosupport this hypothesis through studies that pro-duced conflicting results. In an early study, TVwas found to significantly distract from perfor-mance (Furnham, Gunter, & Peterson, 1994),whereas studying with music as the distractingelement produced no positive or negative ef-fects on performance when compared with per-formance in quiet conditions, even when themusic varied in complexity (Furnham & Allass,1999). Participants were college students, whomight be expected to be less easily distractedthan adolescents. However, in subsequent re-search, also with college students, Furnham andStrbac (2002) compared the difference in dis-

179EFFECT OF MUSIC ON READING COMPREHENSION

traction between music and noise in the back-ground while participants attempted a readingcomprehension task and found both music andnoise were equally distracting.

While most research has focused on deter-mining the disruptive effect of music and othersounds while studying, some educators haveexplored the potential of music to enhance cog-nitive performance. Savage (2001) found evi-dence that listening comprehension and readingcomprehension involve similar cognitive pro-cesses, and posited this similarity implies thetasks are not necessarily competitive, thus sup-porting the notion that music could be educa-tionally enhancing. The typical approach ofsuch research has been to introduce differenttypes of music as stimuli under experimentalconditions. For example, Hallam et al. (2002)studied students’ perceptions of the characteris-tics of background classical instrumental music—pleasant or unpleasant—while they performedreading and computation tasks in a classroomenvironment and concluded that music influ-enced performance through arousal and mood,rather than as a result of distraction. Althoughthe study was conducted in a classroom, theauthors acknowledged that the use of music inthe home may be even more important to stu-dents’ learning, and suggested parents take anactive role in monitoring music when their chil-dren are engaged in learning activities at home.Carlson, Hoffman, Gray, and Thompson (2004)took this premise a step further by using relax-ation exercises accompanied by music to deter-mine whether reading performance could beimproved in a 3rd-grade classroom. The study,which used a vibroacoustic chair that allowedthe student to feel the vibrations of the music,did indeed demonstrate that relaxation with mu-sic can improve reading performance.

A body of research on homework sheds lighton the students’ perspective. Hong et al. (2004)offered a conceptual model of homework orga-nized along dimensions of motivation and pref-erences, including those related to surroundings,including auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic,and mobility qualities, and reported that moti-vated and persistent students expressed a pref-erence for background sound while doinghomework. Students with weaker motivationand a tendency to delay doing homework pre-ferred a quiet, dimly lit environment. Patton etal. (1983) reported somewhat different findings.

These researchers assessed student perceptionsof the effects of TV, radio, or stereo on thedegree of distraction from reading, writing, andmath tasks, and found nearly all participantsreported that no matter what the task, they usu-ally had the TV, radio, or stereo playing whilethey did homework. The students preferred aquiet room for a reading assignment, but notnecessarily for a math assignment or assignmentinvolving both reading and writing. Patton et al.found a clear difference between student per-ceptions of the effects of distractions and thedecision to do homework with or without suchdistractions. Students acknowledged that a quietroom probably would be a better environment,but still preferred doing homework where a TV,radio, or stereo was on, or where others werepresent. Stålhammar (2003), who studied thespatial distinctions adolescents make duringmusic listening experiences, found students pre-ferred to listen in an individual space (i.e., aloneor with headphones, rather than with peers)when they were feeling strongly about some-thing, or when they wanted to relax or think,lending support to the idea that these studentview music as enhancing their study habits.

Little research is available that clarifies pos-sible gender differences in the context of theeffects of music on academic performance, al-though a great deal has been written about theinfluence of music on adolescent identity devel-opment and the role of popular culture in thatdevelopment (Lowe, 2003), as well as the in-fluence of friends’ tastes and other social factorson music preferences (Hurtes, 2002). One areaof research in particular, that focused on self-regulation, holds relevance for the presentstudy. Raffaelli et al. (2005) found that girls hadbetter self-regulatory ability than boys, and thatthis ability persisted from age 4 to 13. Self-regulation in the form of voluntary reading hab-its has been linked to female socialization prac-tices that support reading and sharing bookswith others, and to male socialization practicesthat link mothers, rather than fathers, with read-ing considered to be a girl’s thing, not a boy’sthing (Irwin, 2003). Thus, presumably, girlswould have a stronger ability than do boys toregulate their study habits and to determinewhat could distract them and to avoid suchdistractions. Adolescents of both genders re-portedly are more likely to listen to music thanto read, although both activities have been

180 ANDERSON AND FULLER

shown to be associated with self-esteem andsocial identity. Particularly for boys, peer iden-tification is a critical factor often signaled bymusic preference (Tarrant, 2002).

In sum, while empirical studies of the effectsof music as a distracter on reading comprehen-sion performance are limited, a small body ofresearchers has begun to establish some param-eters for the study of this relationship. Mostresearch in this area has proceeded from theassumption that some deterioration in readingperformance will occur when distracters arepresent; however, researchers are beginning torealize that young people may not be distractedto the same degree or in the same way as olderadolescents and adults. To clarify this issue, thepresent study focused on junior high schoolstudents. Existing experiential studies have in-cluded a variety of variables (i.e., music as wellas different types of noise), and performancetasks of varying degrees of difficulty (e.g.,homework, preparing for exams, writing, math,visual search, short-term memory, and recall).When music is examined, it is typically in-strumental rather than lyrical, and thus not themusic popular with today’s youth. Thepresent study attempted to use the music mostlikely sought out and listened to by adoles-cents today and assessed their preferences forthe specific music selections. Moreover, mea-surements used in most of the research re-viewed tended to be subjective in nature (i.e.,interviews, diaries, and self-reports). Thepresent study administered a standard test ofreading comprehension to determine effectsof lyrical music on learning.

Methods

Participants

Data for this study were obtained from 3347th- and 8th-grade students. Gender was fairlyequivalent in representation, and included 172boys (51.5%) and 162 girls (48.5%), of which198 (59.3%) were in the 7th grade and 136(40.7%) were 8th graders. Students were se-lected from five public junior high schools insouthwestern Arizona. Of the participating stu-dents, 64.6% were Hispanic, 30.5% wereWhite, 2.8% were Black, 1.0% were AmericanIndian, and 1.0% were Asian; this ethnic distri-bution reflected the district’s student population

at large. All students in the study were regular/general education students and were proficientin speaking, reading, and writing English(according to IDEA Proficiency Test and Ari-zona English Language Learner Assessmentscores) to rule out limitations of English lan-guage learners. Students with hearing deficits(as indicated in annual school health examina-tions) were not included in the study.

Instrumentation and Materials

The students were assessed with the readingcomprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitieReading Tests, fourth edition (GMRT-4;MacGinitie et al., 2000). Reading comprehen-sion test scores were chosen as the dependentvariable to most closely represent the outcomeof interest (i.e., students’ ability to acquire andprocess new information). The reading compre-hension subtest is available in alternate butequivalent forms (i.e., S and T). Each formcontains 48 questions pertaining to 11 prosetexts that vary in length and span a wide rangeof content chosen from a variety of publishedsources deemed appropriate for, yet not familiarto students at the grade levels for which the testwas developed. Students were asked to read ashort narrative or expository text and answer afew multiple-choice questions (with 5 choicesper item). The test was administered by theresearcher under standard conditions, includinga 35-min time limit.

Estimates of the GMRT-4 alternate form’sreliability using the Kuder–Richardson For-mula 20 (K-R 20) are high for total test scoresand range from 0.74 to 0.87 for the readingcomprehension subtest. The GMRT-4 hasstrong internal consistency levels for both thetotal test and reading comprehension subtest,with coefficient values of 0.90 or higher (John-son, 2005). Content validity was establishedthrough careful item development, includingstatistical analyses with the Mantel-HaenszelMeasure of Differential Item Functioning, andconsultation with an expert panel to eliminategender and ethnic bias (Flippo & Caverly,2008). Additional technical information can beobtained from the publisher (MacGinitie,MacGinitie, Maria, & Dreyer, 2008).

A brief survey of student study habits andmusic preferences, developed by the researcher,was administered following the session in


which music was played. Participants wereasked to rate the degree to which they appreci-ated hearing each of the nine songs played,using a Likert-type scale ranging from 5 �strongly liked to 1 � strongly disliked, as wellas to indicate a general preference for studyingwith (or without) music. A pilot survey wasadministered to 52 7th- and 8th-grade studentsprior to the experiment. The students were ran-domly chosen from two homeroom classes intwo different junior high schools and wereasked to read and respond to the 11 items on thesurvey; they did not hear the music selections.Results of the pilot indicated that of the 52students, 41 (79%) reported they liked to listento music while studying. When asked aboutpreferences for specific music listed in the sur-vey, a majority (37, or 71%) indicated they didenjoy listening to those music selections (i.e.,they chose 5 � strongly agree or 4 � agree).These findings are consistent with research find-ing that most adolescents study with musicplaying in the background (Patton et al., 1983).The fact that most of the students in the pilotreported liking the musical selections listed inthe survey supported the supposition that thistype of music is typically listened to by thesestudents.

The music that was played in the backgroundduring the study sessions consisted of top hitsongs listed in Billboard Magazine for the weekthe study was conducted. The top hit 100 sin-gles reflect sales and the number of times songsare played on national radio stations. The deci-sion to use top hit music, rather than a specificgenre of music, was based on the assumptionthat participants most likely would be aware ofand familiar with the selections, whether or notthey reflected top hits played by local radiostations or the participants’ personal tastes forsuch music. The top songs chosen from theBillboard charts were very similar to thoselisted in other top charts, such as MTV, Rick

Dees Weekly Top 40, and American Top 40with Ryan Seacrest. The 9 songs chosen for thestudy (Table 3) were actually from the top 20 onthe designated charts. Songs chosen werescreened for appropriateness and did not containfowl language or explicit lyrics.

Data Collection Procedures

Raw scores from the standardized readingcomprehension subtest were obtained duringstudy hall periods, under two different environ-mental conditions: (a) a typical (nonmusic)study hall classroom, and (b) the same room,but with lyrical music playing in the back-ground at a preset volume. Given that the in-strumentation included two parallel forms of thereading comprehension subtest and two envi-ronmental conditions, the participants were ran-domly assigned to one of four groups. Eachgroup participated in the study over 2 days, witha mean time of 1 day between study sessions, asa counterbalancing technique. The rationale forconducting the two sessions a day apart was toreduce any effects caused by differences in stu-dents’ mood, anxiety level, or response to otherfactors in the environment. Table 1 presents theschedule for all four groups, showing whichenvironment they experienced and which formof the reading comprehension subtest they tookon each day.

During the study session in which music wasplayed in the background, nine songs wereplayed over the duration (35 min). The music,previously recorded on a single disk by a pro-fessional disk jockey, was played via a BoseWave Radio/CD unit over the school’s publicaddress system at a preset volume of approxi-mately 75 decibels. This volume was selectedafter careful consideration of prior research,which intimated that more intense noise wasassociated with greater difficulty in the comple-tion of a task. The purpose of the study was not

Table 1Schedule of Experimental Sessions

Day Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

1 Form S Form S Form T Form TNo music With music No music With music

2 Form T Form T Form S Form SWith music No music With music No music


to test the loudness effect, but to examine thecontent effect of lyrical music; hence, the selec-tion of the moderate playback level of 75 deci-bels. The volume was monitored with a soundlevel meter.

The instrument was administered by a certi-fied school psychologist with 20 years of expe-rience as a teacher and school psychologist,working on a doctoral degree. The evaluatorobtained training with the GMRT-4 via a work-shop, and was familiar with the GMRT since itssecond edition. Informed consent was obtainedfrom all participants’ parents. The consent in-troduced the study and examiner, providedbackground information and procedures, ex-plained that the study was voluntary, listed anypotential risks or benefits, stated that no com-pensation would be given, clarified confidenti-ality, gave contact information for questions,and was signed by each student and his or herparent(s) prior to the study. The teachers andevaluator also provided students with informa-tion prior to testing, and explained the outcomesof the study afterward.

Results

A within-subjects analysis of variance(ANOVA) was used to compare how studentsperformed in the two environmental conditions. Aone-way ANOVA was used to compare differ-ence in reading comprehension scores betweenmales and females under both study conditions.Finally, a series of point biserial correlations wasperformed to address the relationship betweenstudents’ preferences and reading comprehen-sion performance.

Across all four experimental groups, the mu-sic environment score was lower than the non-music environment score (M � 26.49 vs.M � 30.56; Table 2), and this difference was

significant, F(1, 332) � 193.60, p � .001 (Ta-ble 3). Overall, nearly three-quarters of the stu-dents (74.5%) did less well on the reading com-prehension test while listening to lyrical musicin the background (M � �4.07, SD � 5.35),compared with students in the quiet environ-ment. Therefore, the hypothesis that a differ-ence exists between reading comprehensionscores in the environments with and withoutmusic was accepted.

Girls had a greater decline in scores underthe music environment compared with thenonmusic environment (M � �5.01) than didboys (M � �3.20; Table 2), and this differ-ence was significant, F(1, 332) � 9.72, p �.002 (Table 4). Therefore, the hypothesis thata gender difference exists regarding readingcomprehension scores in the environments withand without music was accepted.

The students’ total music preference scorewas negatively related to reading comprehen-sion in the nonmusic environment, r(332) ��.12, p � .03 (Table 5). However, the totalmusic preference score was not correlated withthe reading comprehension difference score(music vs. no music), r(332) � .05, p � .34, orwith the reading comprehension score in themusic environment, r(332) � �.09, p � .10.Therefore, the hypothesis that a relationship ex-ists between degree of preference for studyingwith music and reading comprehension scoresin environments with and without music waspartially accepted. Females had a greater pref-erence for listening to music when studyingthan did males (rpb � .28, p � .001). Femalesalso had significantly higher ratings for 7 ofthe 10 individual music preference items, com-pared with the ratings by males. In addition,students who were in more agreement with astatement asking if they liked to listen to musicwhile studying had lower reading comprehen-

Table 2Difference in Comprehension Based on Presence of Music, Descriptive Statistics

Variable Gender n M SD

No Music Score Male 172 29.70 11.00Female 162 31.47 9.24Total 334 30.56 10.21

Music Score Male 172 26.50 11.14Female 162 26.46 10.26Total 334 26.49 10.70


sion scores in the nonmusic environment,r(332) � �.19, p � .001, as well as in themusic environment, r(332) � �.13, p � .01,than did students who reported that they typi-cally preferred not to listen to music whilestudying.

Discussion

Results of the present study support the as-sumption that studying while listening to musicdetracts from the reading performance of ado-lescents. As such, the findings contribute to thebody of existing research, which has producedinconclusive results about whether listening tomusic interferes with students’ study habits.This study was notable because the focus wason adolescents, who have been underrepre-sented in related empirical studies. It also standsout in that gender differences were included,and the music was deliberately selected to re-flect the musical genres popular with the targetage group and what they would most likelylisten to independently or with friends.

The reading comprehension of three-quartersof the students in this study declined signifi-cantly when listening to music, compared withtheir performance in a quiet setting. The detri-mental effect on comprehension of material wasmore pronounced for students who had a stron-ger preference for the music used in this studyand for listening to music while studying. Astriking implication is that these students wereunaware of the amount of attention they were

deflecting from the test or of the impact themusic had on their mental activities. These stu-dents may be so accustomed to reading andstudying with music that it does not occur tothem they might comprehend better without thebackground distraction.

Most students who reported a preference forstudying with music performed more poorlywith and without background music than didthose who preferred to study in quiet surround-ings. The presence of a small group of studentswho read at least as effectively while listeningto music helps explain why research findings todate have been inconsistent. It is possible thesestudents have developed cognitive strategiesthat enable them to focus on study tasks despitecompeting background stimuli. Most students,however, require an intervention to achieve thisaim. For example, capitalizing on activities thatare popular with adolescents, such as journalkeeping, can offer a channel for raising aware-ness about study habits and monitoring changeover time. The powerful influence of the peergroup can be harnessed in group interventionsto enhance study skills and techniques.

These results support the idea that lyricalmusic and written text are competing stimuli, asstated by Pool et al. (2003), as well as the theorythat people discriminately attend to sounds (Os-wald et al., 2000). In the current study, it ispossible students discriminately attended to thelyrics, varying their attention depending onwhether they were listening to songs and artiststhey liked or did not like. Further study would

Table 3Difference in Reading Comprehension Scores, Based on Presence of Music,Within-Subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Test

Source SS df MS F p �2

Condition 2772.94 1 2772.94 193.60 .001 .61Error 4769.56 332 14.32Total 7542.50 333

Table 4Comparison of Music Difference Score, by Gender

Source SS df MS F p �2

Gender 271.10 1 271.10 9.72 .002 .17Error 9264.87 332 27.91Total 9535.98 333

Note. Difference � Music environment score versus no music environment score.


be needed to determine the differential effectsof various potential sources of distraction, suchas whether students would have been less dis-tracted by other genres of music (e.g., jazz,country, alternative, classical, rap) than by pop-ular lyrical music. Another possible explanationfor the results of this study is that, rather thanthe music distracting students from reading,they might rely on background music becausethey are already disengaged from the material.In that case, further research could look at thecorrelations between students’ perception of therelevance of educational content and their ten-dency to become distracted.

Self-efficacy theory may explain the genderdifference, given that sources have suggestedgirls have higher self-efficacy for reading thando boys (Horner & Shwery, 2002; Pajares,2002). Because high self-efficacy sometimes re-sults in an overestimation of one’s abilities, it ispossible that girls overestimated their ability toread or study successfully while listening tomusic. Studies also have suggested that adoles-cents typically prefer listening to music theyview as being socially accepted within a groupof peers (Hurtes, 2002; Tarrant, 2002). Thistrend appears to be gender related. Tarrantfound 81% of 14- and 15-year-old girls reportedthey listened to music as a leisure activity witha peer group, compared with only 48% of boyswho did so. The detrimental effect of music onthe girls’ reading performance in the currentstudy implies that educators need to be aware ofadolescent girls’ potentially greater distractibil-ity and plan interventions accordingly. At the

same time, they can take advantage of adoles-cent girls’ propensity for social interaction,which suggest that group sessions and peercoaching may be among the techniques thatcould prove effective with this group.

The results of this study raise practical issueswith respect to student’s awareness of their in-dividual study habits. Educators and parentsmay need to help a sizable group of students,specifically those who prefer to study whilelistening to music and are unaware of the extentto which they are distracted, develop a reper-toire of cognitive skills and strategies to reducedistractibility and improve concentration andattention. To expect that adolescents will alterstudy habits without interventions that considerindividual developmental level and social andpersonal preferences is unrealistic. Thus, a firstremedial step would be for educators and par-ents to assist students in becoming aware oftheir habits, and of the effect those habits haveon academic performance. School psychologistscan be alert to students who may have issues inthis area, and can consult with teachers andparents to make sure students hone their studyand homework habits.

One limitation of the study is that the readingability and possible attentional deficits of stu-dents, which could have influenced their com-prehension scores, were not assessed. In addi-tion, various environmental factors (e.g., timeof day, volume of the music) and individualfactors (e.g., students’ moods) were assumednot to have a significant influence on the results.Finally, this study used only one experimental

Table 5Point Biserial Correlations for Selected Variables

No music score Music score Gendera

Total music preference �.12� �.09 .28��

Q1. When I study, I like to listen to music �.19�� .13�� .16��

Q2. SOS (Rescue Me), by Rihanna �.13� �.13� .36��

Q3. Bad Day, by Daniel Powter �.03 .02 .20��

Q4. Unwritten, by Natasha Bedingfield �.03 �.02 .36��

Q5. What Hurts the Most, by Rascal Flatts �.02 .02 .24��

Q6. Walk Away, by Kelly Clarkson �.09 �.08 .39��

Q7. Move Along, by The All-American Rejects .01 .05 .07Q8. Grillz, by Nelly �.30�� .28�� .05Q9. Savin Me, by Nickleback �.06 �.03 .05Q10. Over My Head (Cable Car), by the Fray �.03 �.03 .11�

a Gender: 1 � male, 2 � female.� p � .05. �� p � .01. �� p � .005. �� p � .001.


condition of music, and students in other set-tings or of different ages might react differentlyto different music selections, thus limiting thegeneralizability of the findings.

In conclusion, the association between musicand intellectual performance is clearly a topicthat merits further investigation, particularlyamong adolescents. This study focused specifi-cally on reading comprehension. Other studiescould explore different aspects of literacy, suchas mathematics and writing tasks. All these ac-tivities involve different cognitive processes,which in turn could differentially affect the im-pact of background music on students’ learning.Obtaining further clarification should be a pri-ority for educational researchers concerned withhelping adolescents gain skills that will benefitthem in academic endeavors as well as in otheractivities in an environment where multitaskingprevails.

References

Besson, M., Faıta, F. Peretz, I., Bonnel, A. M., &Requin, J. (1998). Singing in the brain: Indepen-dence of lyrics and tunes. Psychological Sci-ence, 9, 494–498. doi:10.1111/1467–9280.00091

Boehnke, K., Munch, T., & Hoffmann, D. (2002).Development through media use? A German studyon the use of radio in adolescence. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 26, 193–201.doi:10.1080/01650250042000735

Bourke, P. A., Duncan, J., & Nimmo-Smith, I.(1996). A general factor involved in dual taskperformance decrement. Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 49A, 525–545. doi:10.1080/027249896392487

Boyle, R., & Coltheart, V. (1996). Effects of irrele-vant sounds on phonological coding in readingcomprehension and short-term memory. QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 398–416. doi:10.1080/027249896392702

Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communi-cation. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Carlson, J. K., Hoffman, J., Gray, D., & Thomp-son, A. (2004). A musical interlude: Using mu-sic and relaxation to improve reading perfor-mance. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39,246 –250. doi:10.1177/10534512040390040801

Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (Eds.). (2008). Hand-book of college reading and study strategy re-search (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Furnham, A., & Allass, K. (1999). The influence ofmusical distraction of varying complexity on thecognitive performance of extroverts and introverts.

European Journal of Personality, 13, 27–38. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099 – 0984(199901/02)13:1�27::AID-PER318�3.0. CO;2-R

Furnham, A., Gunter, B., & Peterson, E. (1994). Tele-vision distraction and the performance of introvertsand extroverts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8,705–711. doi:10.1002/acp. 2350080708

Furnham, A., & Strbac, L. (2002). Music is asdistracting as noise: The differential distractionof background music and noise on the cognitivetest performance of introverts and extraverts.Ergonomics, 45, 203–217. doi:10.1080/00140130210121932.PMid:11964204

Hallam, S., Price, J., & Katsarou, G. (2002). Theeffects of background music on primary schoolpupils’ task performance. Educational Studies, 28,111–122. doi:10.1080/03055690220124551

Hong, E., Milgram, R. M., & Rowell, L. L. (2004).Homework motivation and preference: A learner-centered homework approach. Theory Into Prac-tice, 43, 197–204. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4303_5

Horner, S. L., & Shwery, C. S. (2002). Becoming anengaged, self-regulated reader. Theory Into Prac-tice, 41, 102–109. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_6

Hurtes, K. P. (2002). Social dependency: The impactof adolescent female culture. Leisure Sciences, 24,109–121. doi:10.1080/01490400252772863

Irwin, N. (2003). Personal constructs and the en-hancement of adolescent engagement in reading.Support for Learning, 18, 29–34. doi:10.1111/1467–9604.00274

Johnson, K. M. (2005). Review of the Gates-MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). In R. A. Spies& B. S. Plake (Eds.), Mental measurements year-book (16th ed.). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute ofMental Measurements.

Lowe, M. (2003). Colliding feminisms: BritneySpears, “tweens,” and the politics of reception.Popular Music & Society, 26, 123–140. doi:10.1080/0300776032000095477

Luttrell, W., & Parker, C. (2001). High school stu-dents’ literacy practices and identities, and thefigured world of school. Journal of Research inReading, 24, 235–247. doi:10.1111/1467–9817.00146

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., &Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie readingtests (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: The Riverside PublishingCompany.

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., &Dreyer, L. G. (2008). Gates-MacGinitie readingtests, fourth ed., bundled technical and supplemen-tal report. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Pressand Publishing.

Oswald, C. J. P., Tremblay, S., & Jones, D. M.(2000). Disruption of comprehension by the mean-ing of irrelevant sound. Memory, 8, 345–350. doi:10.1080/09658210050117762


Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory IntoPractice, 41, 116 –125. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_8

Patton, J. E., Stinard, T. A., & Routh, D. K. (1983).Where do children study? Journal of EducationalResearch, 76, 280–286.

Paulhus, D. L., Aks, D. J., & Coren, S. (1990).Independence of performance and self-report mea-sures of distractibility. Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 130, 781–787.

Pool, M. M., Koolstra, C. M., & Van Der Voort,T. H. A. (2003). Distraction effects of backgroundsoap operas on homework performance: An exper-imental study enriched with observational data.Educational Psychology, 23, 361–380. doi:10.1080/01443410303211

Raffaelli, M., Crockett, L. J., & Shen, Y.-L. (2005).Developmental stability and change in self-regulation from childhood to adolescence. Journalof Genetic Psychology, 166, 54–75. doi:10.3200/GNTP. 166.1.54-76PMid:15782678

Rothstein, R., & Jacobson, R. (2006). The goals ofeducation. Phi Delta Kappa International, 88,

264 –272. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20442237

Savage, R. (2001). The “simple view” of reading:Some evidence and possible implications. Educa-tional Psychology in Practice, 17, 18–33. doi:10.1080/02667360120039951

Schneider, M. (2007). Talking points by MarkSchneider to Regional Laboratory directors, pre-sentation on NCES transcript studies: Summary offindings 1982–2004. Retrieved from http://nces.Ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks2007/2_09_2007.asp

Stålhammar, B. (2003). Music teaching and young peo-ple’s own musical experience. Music Education Re-search, 5, 61–68. doi:10.1080/14613800307100

Tarrant, M. (2002). Adolescent peer groups and so-cial identity. Social Development, 11, 110–123.doi:10.1111/1467–9507.00189

The Billboard hot 100. (2006, April 22). BillboardMagazine, 70.

Weinstein, C. S., & Weinstein, N. D. (1979). Noiseand reading performance in an open space school.Journal of Educational Research, 72, 210–213.


Effect of Music on Reading Comprehension

Documents

Transcript of Effect of Music on Reading Comprehension