This video, from TedEd, helpfully outlines many of the reasons it can be difficult to confirm research done in scientific fields–like neuroscience and psychology.
In brief: each research article you read takes a helpful step in a beneficial direction. (Even occasional missteps can be helpful, because they provide us with fresh perspectives.) However: researchers are always on a journey–and almost never at a destination.
For those of us who love hearing from scientists at Learning and the Brain conferences, we should remember: their research is always part of a large, complex, and fascinating discussion. The last word on any subject, however, has yet to be written…
(BTW: Don’t worry about the video’s hyperbolic title.)
My name is Alex Wonnell, aka Wonz. I work in a middle school in Burlington, VT.
Dr. Kou Murayama, who researches motivation and learning, presented some of the most interesting and relevant research I saw at the November 2016 conference.
As educators, we are constantly trying to motivate students. Do rewards work? When should I provide this carrot? What’s best for long-term learning? Murayama’s research provides much-needed context and science in this domain.
Here is a list of Dr. Murayama’s general findings:
Intrinsic Motivation (IM) leads to more long-term consolidation of learning.
Extrinsic Motivation (EM) leads to more short-term learning.
IQ is strongly related to baseline math achievement. However, growth in math achievement is unrelated to IQ.
Unlike IQ, IM predicts long-term learning.
We can increase IM by promoting a sense of competence, relatedness to teachers and peers, and choice.
IM may enhance people’s resilience to failure feedback.
Performance-based incentives do not always work.
Extrinsic rewards may not enhance learning for interesting work; there is an undermining effect.
Extrinsic rewards could facilitate performance with “boring” work.
What to do with Murayama’s findings?
I particularly found increasing intrinsic motivation to be most valuable. I spend most of my time in school with a high-needs, highly un-motivated student who has suffered developmental trauma. Most of the work he does relies on an extrinsic reward, like throwing a ball around. To him, all work is “boring” unless it’s a game. So, Murayama’s conclusions partly validate these methods in this context.
I balance these extrinsic rewards with several of Murayama’s intrinsic reward techniques.
I provide constant positive feedback to create feelings of competence; I encourage classmate communication to promote relatedness; and I ALWAYS give options. “You can’t make me” is a very common response I get; providing choice is a way to make him feel more autonomous while providing a chance at increasing intrinsic motivation. (While this method is not completely self-directed, it is less forced.) Part of the art of teaching is the delivery and creativity designing the choices.
In a way, I look at the work I do as extrinsically motivating his intrinsic motivation. Dr. Murayama’s research has given me greater insight into this paradox.
In sum, Murayama provides a beginning framework to understand motivation in education. The classroom is a complex environment – one very different from a laboratory – but his research can help steer us in the right direction. No wonder that he won the 2016 “Transforming Education Through Neuroscience” Award.
[Editor’s Note: Have you got a Learning and the Brain story you’d like to share? Email me at [email protected]]
Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Yamagata, S. (2011). Separation of performance-approach and performance-avoidance achievement goals: A broader analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 238. (Article)
Murayama, K., & Kuhbandner, C. (2011). Money enhances memory consolidation–But only for boring material. Cognition, 119(1), 120-124. (Article)
Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma, K., Sugiura, A., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Matsumoto, K. (2013). How self-determined choice facilitates performance: A key role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 1241-1251. (Article)
Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., & Vom Hofe, R. (2013). Predicting long‐term growth in students’ mathematics achievement: The unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies. Child development, 84(4), 1475-1490. (Article)
Educators have long hoped that that technology holds great promise to move the educational system away from the 19th century factory model to something more apt for our globalized and digitized society. The internet is rife with articles exclaiming that a revolution is around the corner or that, conversely, the technological advances of our society have not yet transformed schools.
In the past twenty years we’ve seen computers and internet access in schools, digitized white boards, and, recently, one-to-one initiatives with Google chromebooks and iPads. But what have these technological innovations done for learning? Sure, they have increased access to content (think MOOCs), but often they simply move a traditional pedagogical approach onto a computer. Will we ever see a technology that, in and of itself, truly changes the experience of learning?
One technology with intriguing potential is immersive virtual reality (VR). In the commercial world, one of the most exciting technological debuts is that of virtual reality – see the Occulus Rift or Samsung Gear VR. But what immersive technology is actually being researched and developed that could have an impact on student learning? And, most importantly, how will these technologies actually improve learning?
What do we know about VR and Learning?
Sadly, we don’t yet know nearly enough about how virtual reality impacts learning outcomes as compared to traditional, passive presentation methods. This knowledge gap seems to be especially large in relation to building deep, abstract, conceptual knowledge. However, researchers are exploring intriguing possibilities.
Constructing Learning Through Experience
“Constructivist” theories of education argue that knowledge isn’t passively absorbed, but actively built through interactive experiences in the world. A 2011 review article by Mikropoulos and Natsis (1) concludes that VR promotes learning by creating this kind of immersive experience.
As science teachers know, limits in our day-to-day lived experiences often create enduring misconceptions. In the documentary A Private Universe (2), for example, filmmakers interviewed recent Harvard graduates and asked them basic questions about the seasons: why, for instance, it’s warmer or colder at certain times of the year. Surprisingly, many of these graduates struggled to move beyond common misconceptions. (Admittedly I would have answered very similarly.)
Although all these young adults had been told how seasons actually work at several times during their schooling, misleading “evidence” from their day-to-day experiences prevented them from absorbing this scientific information.
Similarly, Marilyn Salzman and colleagues (3) argue that misconceptions about Newton’s laws of motion may be partially attributable to the fact that many of the forces at play are unobservable in daily experience.
Mikropoulos and Natsis’s research suggests that VR can help overcome this experiential deficit. With immersive virtual reality, students can transcend physical limitations and directly experience meaningful phenomena. In this TED talk, for example, Michael Bodekaer (4) shows how VR can be used to learn about DNA replication–a sort of “Honey I Shrunk the Kids” learning experience at the sub-cellular level. He also describes how virtual reality technology can expose students to high tech (and prohibitively expensive) lab equipment and experiments through engaging simulation.
With VR, neuroscience students might virtually experience the release of brain chemicals, and observe the process of synapse formation firsthand. In other disciplines, students could be virtually transported to a historical site or museum that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to visit.
Increased Transfer and Motivation
Interestingly, Chris Dede (5) builds on the idea of the experiential benefits of virtual reality in talking about transfer; because virtual environments allow for interaction and are, ideally, similar to real-world environments, skills and knowledge may be more likely to transfer to real world settings than in a passive classroom experience.
Dede also argues that virtual environments allow students to seamlessly switch between different spatial perspectives, providing a deeper understanding of the phenomenon at play. In “NewtownWorld”, a virtual reality project about Newton’s laws of motion, students are able to both observe a ball in motion from a third person perspective and also take on the perspective of the ball itself. In his study, students who experienced this perspective-switching feature found it to be motivating.
Sensory Immersion
Unlike traditional 2D classroom presentations (pictures, charts, diagrams), VR can provide a 3D, interactive, multisensory experience that may lead to deeper learning. Because of this sensory immersion, students are led to feel that the digital simulation is an authentic experience, eliciting the similar emotions and thoughts as if they were actually in that environment.
Just like navigating and interacting with objects in the real world, immersive VR can provide sensory feedback in the form of vibrations or other forces, and this feedback can help make the learning experience seem more real. Salzman and colleagues2 point out that using haptic (touch) cues to navigate through a multisensory virtual environment could improve learning and memory. They also suggest that this type of experience can improve students’ motivation, enjoyment, and attitudes about learning.
The Social Future of Virtual Reality in the Classroom
As exciting as the technology of virtual reality is, we clearly need more experimental research on its effectiveness for different learning goals. It is telling that the Mikropoulos and Natsis literature review discussed above, which considered VR research over a 10-year period, only found 53 studies.
A recent article by researcher Pierre Dillenbourg (6) highlights an important trend in learning technologies: they are becoming more social. This trend is interesting to think about in the context of virtual reality and digital technologies. I initially had the impression that VR in the classroom would lead to social isolation, with students exploring their own, unique simulated world, not paying any attention to their classmates.
I think many of us can think of examples from our lives that echo this concern. As a native new yorker, one of the most comforting experiences is traveling on the New York City subway system when I am home for the holidays. It is truly a special experience, interacting and existing within a rich range of human life.
Recently, however, the transportation authority has introduced underground cellular service. Combined with the rise of tablet computers and smartphones, I see many travelers (myself included) completely immersed in their devices, oblivious to others. In this state, they could be anywhere in the world, missing the serendipitous interactions that provide rich detail to our lives.
Would virtual reality introduce this kind of detachment and social isolation to the classroom? One of the lines of research in virtual reality and learning involves “multi-user virtual environments” (MUVE) (7). These environments allow students to interact with computerized representations of other human participants. In the platform River City (8), students can chat and interact with their classmates while investigating the environmental impact of pollution. MUVE technology adds an interesting social dimension that should be explored in future research.
The Next Big Thing in Education?
Will the next revolution in school be virtual reality? It’s far from clear what the answer to this question is. Although access to VR technology may well increase, research on learning processes and outcomes is not substantial enough for schools to make these types of decisions. VR will be an extremely interesting area of research and innovation to watch in the coming years; I will certainly be keeping my eyes peeled!
References:
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education,56(3), 769-780. [Article]
Schneps, M. H., Sadler, P. M., Woll, S., & Crouse, L. (1989). A Private universe. S. Burlington, VT: Annenberg Media. [Video]
Salzman, M. C., Dede, C., Loftin, R. B., & Chen, J. (1999). A model for understanding how virtual reality aids complex conceptual learning.Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(3), 293-316. [Article]
Bodekaer, Michael. This virtual lab will revolutionize science class. [Video]
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. science,323(5910), 66-69. [Article]
Dillenbourg, P. (2016). The Evolution of Research on Digital Education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 544-560. [Article]
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22. [Article]
Metcalf, S. J., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Virtual worlds for education: River City and EcoMUVE. In MiT6 International Conference (pp. 1-6). Chicago. [Article]
Back in the dark ages, when I was just cutting my teaching teeth, we teachers might have asked our students to review for an upcoming test by asking them to reread the chapter and their notes from class. With the benefit of psychology research, we now know that another strategy will be more effective.
Rather than have students reread the chapter or their notes, we might instead encourage them to outline the content from memory. This approach–called “the testing effect” or “active recall’ or event “blank page review”–leads to substantial increases in long-term memory formation. (That’s psychologist speak for “learning.”)
The efficacy of this form of retrieval practice is supported by a wealth of research and has been shown to be a powerful strategy for long-term learning.(1) The benefits have been shown in a variety of environments, over a wide range of student ages, and across many disciplines.(2) (3) (4)
One of the nice things about the testing effect is that it can easily be integrated into a study routine or a class lesson plan. Students can employ the strategy on their own without the use of anything more sophisticated than a blank piece of paper. Teachers can incorporate blank page review or frequent low stakes or no stakes quizzes into their courses as a way to leverage the power or retrieval practice.
Are there other effective ways in which we can incorporate retrieval practice into the classroom using current technology to not only enhance long term learning but also to provide formative assessment data for both the student and the teacher? The simple answer is YES!
“High-tech” version
Student response systems–commonly known as “clickers”–are a fantastic way to engage students in the process of retrieval practice; they also provide both teacher and student with valuable formative assessment data. Several strategies for effective use of clickers will enhance students’ learning.
Make sure that the questions are not too easy.
Be sure to include the most common wrong answers as options.
After the initial polling is complete, take advantage of the different student answers to generate discussion and debate about the topic. Insist that students make a convincing argument as to why their choice is the best answer.
After initial polling on a question, I often project the results for my students to see. Depending on the spread of answers, I follow up with one of the these questions:
“Can somebody make a case for why their answer is the best choice?”
“Can somebody make a case for why their answer is a better choice than the one that was just proposed?”
“What do you need to know/remember in order to answer this particular question?”
When there is no clear consensus and wide range of answers are selected, I usually go in a different direction.
“Take a minute at your table (typically, 3-4 students) or with the person next to you to discuss your initial answer and come to a consensus. In a minute, we will re-poll on the same question.”
After a brief period of discussion and re-polling, there tends to be fewer potential answers chosen. I can then solicit an argument for one answer or another.
Don’t be afraid to include some vague wording, or to have more than one answer be correct depending on how the question is interpreted. A little intentional confusion and healthy debate/discussion can be a powerful way to incorporate an additional desirable difficulty into the mix.(5)
The feedback that occurs during the post polling discussion and analysis is not only beneficial for correcting erroneous answers; it also helps with long term retention of correct answers on which the students were not initially confident in their answer.(6) Both of these factors lead to greater long term retention ,as well as strengthened metacognitive skills for the students. A win-win!
If you do not have clickers at your disposal, you have several web-based alternatives to collect student responses. Polleverywhere, Socrative, Google forms and Kahoot! are just a few of the options that exist out there for teachers to use.
As a word of warning, there are some potential downsides and caveats that you need to consider when using student response systems. First and foremost is that no matter how much you plan ahead, you can count on the technology not working flawlessly every time. Who among us has not experienced the joy of having the projector bulb blow out just as you are about to project something on the board?
Another factor to consider is the time required. It takes longer to cover the same ground using this retrieval practice strategy. I would argue that the time is well worth it for the students, but the reality is that it will take more of your valuable class time.
“Low-tech” version
If you do not have a set of clickers or enough electronic devices in your classroom, you can still take advantage of this technique. Personal white boards, paddles, or even different colored note cards let individual students or groups of students vote for various possible answers. Any way that allows you to canvas different student responses and then to generate discussion and debate about those answers will work just as well.
Regardless of the technique used, the power of retrieval practice and feedback for long term learning is undeniable and should be an arrow in your pedagogical quiver.
References:
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181-210. Link
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775. Link
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966-968. Link
Agarwal, P. K., Bain, P. M., & Chamberlain, R. W. (2012). The value of applied research: Retrieval practice improves classroom learning and recommendations from a teacher, a principal, and a scientist. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 437-448. Link
Overoye, Acacia L.; Storm, Benjamin C. (2015) Harnessing the power of uncertainty to enhance learning. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, Vol 1(2), Jun 2015, 140-148. Link
Butler, Andrew C.; Karpicke, Jeffrey D.; Roediger III, Henry L. Correcting a metacognitive error: Feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol 34(4), Jul 2008, 918-928. Link
