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
It is common knowledge that parents play a vital role in their children’s development. However, we are slowly coming to understand just how vital this role is.
Teachers understand this connection better than anyone; we interact with our students’ parents, and we also see how parents interact with their children. We teachers in turn are able to make anecdotal connections between parenting styles and how children carry themselves in and out of school.
Research is catching up to what teachers have known since the earliest days of the profession. Scientists have begun to tease out certain traits that help children do well in school and in life, and are going one step further to investigate how these traits are developed, including the role that caretakers might play.
One recent example of this growing body of research examines the development of a child’s intelligence mindset–the belief about whether intelligence is fixed or malleable–which has been found to influence motivation and learning. When faced with obstacles or difficulties, those with a growth mindset, who believe that their intelligence can be improved through effort, tend to persevere [1,2]. They do not view obstacles as discouraging, but rather, as informative and motivating [3].
Those with a fixed mindset, on the other hand, do not belief that intelligence can be improved with effort. Thus, those with a fixed mindset tend to be discouraged–not informed and motivated–by obstacles.
How, though, might parents instill a growth mindset in their children? In a paper published this spring, Kyla Haimovitz and Carol Dweck seek to investigate just that [4]. They hypothesize that it is in fact not the parents’ intelligence mindset that influences that of the child; an adult’s intelligence mindset is all but invisible and thus not readily adopted by the child. Rather, it is a parent’s failure mindset–their view of failure as being either enhancing or debilitating–that becomes visible to a child through interactions, and which thus plays a larger role in shaping children’s belief about their intelligence.
Parents’ Intelligence Mindset Isn’t Visible
The series of studies presented in the paper show some important correlations. To begin with, the researchers found no significant correlation between parents’ reports of their own intelligence mindsets and the children’s perception of their parent’s intelligence mindsets; children could not accurately perceive whether or not their parents viewed intelligence as something that is fixed or as something that can be improved. Just as the authors had previously guessed, parents’ intelligence mindsets are invisible to their children.
Additional findings from these studies provide some insight into why parents’ intelligence mindsets might not be seen by their children. When presented with the hypothetical situation of their children bringing home a failing grade, parents were given options to respond in two primary ways: to show concern over their children’s poor performance, or instead, to show concern over how their children could use the failing grade as a learning opportunity (the latter of which would be more in-line with a growth mindset). These studies found that parents’ view of intelligence did not predict how they would respond.
Even if parents believe that intelligence can be improved through effort, they still may respond to the performance of their children in ways that are not representative of this outlook. This is a fundamental concept for this paper; children do not see and are thus not influenced by their parents’ beliefs, only by their actions.
Parents’ Failure Mindset Is Visible
If not their intelligence mindset, how might parents influence their children’s view on intelligence? The authors suggest it is the parents’ failure mindset–their view of failure as being either debilitating or enhancing–which is visible to their children, and which thus plays a larger role in forming children’s beliefs about intelligence. Unlike parents’ intelligence mindsets, children were in fact able to predict what their parents thought about failure.
Parents’ Failure Mindset Predicts Their Response
Presumably, parents make their failure mindset visible to their children through their reactions and responses in various situations. More precisely, the studies found that parents’ failure mindset predicts how they respond to their children in situations where their children have done poorly. The more that parents believe that failure is debilitating, the more likely they are to react with concerns of their child’s performance or ability, perhaps by pitying their children, doubting their ability, and/or comforting them. On the other hand, parents with a failure-is-enhancing perspective are more likely to respond to their children’s failure with support for improvement, discussing with them what they could have learned from the experience and how they can get better.
Consider the message that these reactions send to a child. Might these reactions play a role in shaping what children think about their own abilities? Haimovitz and Dweck’s findings support this hypothesis. Of the variables measured, the strongest predictor of children’s intelligence mindset was parents’ response to their failure: either focusing on the children’s performance or on how their children could improve.
While a parent’s failure mindset is also a strong predictor of a child’s intelligence mindset, parents’ failure mindset is an even stronger predictor of how they tend to react in these scenarios, which then goes on to most strongly predict the child’s intelligence mindset.
Parent’s Failure Mindset
↓
Parent’s Response to Child’s Failure
↓
Child’s Intelligence Mindset
Why is it that a parent’s response is such a strong predictor of the child’s intelligence mindset?
The studies reveal that when parents place such a strong emphasis on their children’s performance, children tend to believe that this is how their parents want them to prove their abilities: through their performance. The researchers suggest it is this perception of their parents’ beliefs that leads children to believe that intelligence is fixed. Parents’ strong emphasis on their children’s performance leads the children to believe that it is the performance that is most important, and not their learning.
Takeaway 1 – Take On a Learning-Orientation (While Maintaining Expectations)
Parents’ responses to their children’s performances are powerful predictors of the children’s belief about the malleability of intelligence. If we are to interpret these correlations favorably, we ought to use occasions of poor performance as learning opportunities for our children. We should let them know that these scenarios present opportunities to get better.
It is also worth mentioning that, in addition to the importance of maintaining a focus on learning and improvement, studies have found that, academically, parents’ expectations for their children’s performances predict the children’s performances [5].
There is a fine line that parents and teachers need to walk: they must maintain expectations while also conveying the notion that poor performances are not indicators of ability, but rather, opportunities to learn how to improve.
Takeaway 2 – Work through the Parents
While the findings in this paper highlight a specific and important correlation, Haimovitz and Dweck also reference the large body of work that underscores the importance of the role that parents play in their children’s development [6,7,8]. Schools may be able to reinforce what they are doing by more deeply involving parents, encouraging them to strengthen at home various aspects of what the teachers are working on at school.
I envisage a (perhaps utopian) future wherein schools, especially those focusing on early childhood, view building the capacity of caregivers as vital to their work in enabling their students to realize their full potential. Many practitioners might understand why this would be desirable, and I believe that research will continue to highlight the strong influence that caretakers have on children’s developmental trajectories.
Takeaway 3 – The Earliest Years Matter
After having a few perspective-altering “Aha!” moments on how formative the earliest years of life are, I tend to view most everything through this lens. This is especially the case here. The average age of the children from the studies in this paper was about ten years old. By that age, children have already developed a belief about whether or not their intelligence is fixed or malleable, and this mindset in turn has already had an effect on their learning.
It is doubtful that children develop this belief overnight. In fact, I would argue that they begin to formulate their beliefs as early as they can understand, which occurs well before they can speak, and is then shaped through the daily interactions they have with others. It has been shown that the first years lay a crucial foundation for development across the lifespan, and it is during this time that we must also be deliberate about what we convey to our children about many things–including how to handle failure.
Conclusion
Future research will continue to underscore what many practitioners already know: in order to best enable children to reach their full potential, parents must be made a part of the equation. The paper presented in this article sheds some light on one aspect of parenting, however small, yet greatly formative. If these findings are at all indicative of the potential that lies in the interactions that caretakers have with their children, supporting parents in supporting their children from day one shows immense promise in improving children’s outcomes.
References
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1, 313–336.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). What predicts children’s fixed and growth intelligence mindsets? Not their parents’ views of intelligence but their parents’ views of failure. Psychological science, p.1-11. doi:10.1177/0956797616639727
Lane, K. L., Wehby, J. H., & Cooley, C. (2006). Teacher expectations of students’ classroom behavior across the grade span: Which social skills are necessary for success?. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 153-167.
Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 161–164.
Pomerantz, E. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Price, C. E. (2005). The role of parents in how children approach achievement: A dynamic process perspective. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 259– 278). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Humans are genetically adapted for learning. The transmission of information, skills, culture, and knowledge from generation to generation has helped us survive and become who we are today. Our journey to becoming modern humans has been shaped primarily because of the change in our environments.
The trouble is, our modern learning (and teaching) environments are not anything like those of our ancestors. Recent research is beginning to present some compelling evidence for implementing evolutionary-influenced practices and policies into our modern education system. In fact, the non-profit think tank I work for has done extensive work in this field, including publishing a textbook, hosting workshops for researchers and educators. We have also helped implement some of these practices in schools in both Florida and New York with great results. In order to design and implement an effective educational environment, we need to understand our evolved abilities to acquire skills and knowledge.
And importantly, some of these ideas have not only been touted by other research fields, but have also been put into practice by some educators. Here are six points that I believe everyone should consider about how our current educational system would look from the perspective of evolutionary theory:
Learning should be child motivated
One way many evolutionary scientists can get a glimpse of our ancestral past is by looking at hunter-gatherer societies. What they’ve found is that adults do not control children’s learning, but rather help children learn as they grow – answering their questions and showing them the skills they need to succeed, when they need them. Within these traditional societies, children (and even teenagers) learn through their own self-direction through play and exploration, making it essential for there to be free time for these activities.1, 2
Children are prepared to learn from birth
Relative to our lifespans, humans have a longer period of childhood than any other species on the planet. While this prolonged maturing process has its downsides (greater parental investment), it also has its upsides: intelligence.
Our big, complex brains take a lot of time to develop, most of which happens after birth. While I won’t go into the driving factors of this development(which will be featured in a later essay), one thing is for certain: in ancient environments, children would have been very vulnerable because of this prolonged period. Children’s curiosity, playfulness, socialness, and their ability to imitate and learn new skills were extremely valuable for surviving these environments. 3, 4 Children’s prolonged development and innate drive to learn not only helped them survive, but also allowed them to flourish in society, allowing them to learn how to be social, learn and participate in their culture, become innovative, and learn language. This pattern is still evident in hunter-gatherer societies today. 2
Learning should be immediately reinforced
While we all know the long term benefits of learning, young people often have a hard time understanding this. Research has shown that a number of species (from pigeons 5 to monkeys 6, and humans 7) find delayed gratification extremely difficult to hold out for. A great example of this is a very fun study that involved children and marshmallows.
Young children were put a room, one at a time, with nothing but a table, chair, and a big, fluffy marshmallow on a plate. The kids were told that they could eat the marshmallow now if they’d like or–if they could wait until the researcher came back (approximately 15 minutes)– they would be given two marshmallows. Needless to say, quite a few kids ate the single marshmallow.
One way to address this struggle with self-control is by allowing children to play and explore more. When children participate in self-motivated play and explorations, the benefits often lie in the discoveries made, the excitement of the activity itself, feedback from others participating, and the immediate gratification of learning something new, while having fun doing it. While sitting quietly in a classroom and listening to a conventional teaching lesson may allow children to learn the same things, they don’t realize that their good behavior and full attention will result in a better education.
Learning is best in mixed-age settings
Before “grade” defined schools, children rarely were segregated by age. In modern hunter-gatherer and traditional societies, learning occurs in mixed age groups. In fact, this was an active model of learning environments as recently as the 19th century.
Children can learn from those older and younger than themselves, whether by imitating an older child or by participating in play and pretend with younger children. When helping younger children, older children begin to learn how to explain and teach their skills, while at the same time younger children are given the opportunity to engage with and learn from older children.
As every teacher knows, we often learn more by teaching than by being taught, especially when our students challenge us. And research within the social sciences backs up this claim.8 While mixed-aged classrooms may be quite challenging to implement within our current school systems, not only because of the strain on the teachers but also because of constraining curriculum standards, they are something to consider for the future and for other less restrictive situations, like after school programs.
Learning environments should mimic ancestral conditions
Species are adapted to their long-term past environments, and so prior adaptations sometimes go awry. In other words: humans function in today’s world with evolutionary adaptations better fitted to habitats that are thousands of years old. Many of the problems that schools and children experience today may be unintended consequences of educational environments that are significantly different from ancestral conditions.
One example is physical activity. Physical activity and movement were a central part of the ancestral environment; however, in current learning environments, children are forced to sit still for extended periods of time. In fact, this deprivation of movement, along with other things like physical touch, greatly hamper children’s development. 9, 2
Learning should be democratic
One of the main things that sets humans apart from many other species is our ability to cooperate and be egalitarian.10 People of all ages and cultures cherish having their voices be heard. Children are no different – they are often the first to resist being told what to do.
While this doesn’t mean that children should be allowed to rule the roost, it does suggest that they should be actively involved in the decision-making process, especially in the environment where they spend a significant amount of their time: school.
One popular real-life example of this is the Sudbury Valley School, in which adults do not control children’s education; rather the children make democratic decisions to educate themselves. The administrative body consists of students and staff members who make decisions together on rules, purchases, staff, and learning courses. The school and model have been working for over 40 years, with graduates going on to pursue careers in everything from science and social work to music.
So, how do we implement this knowledge in (and out of) the classroom?
By understanding our evolved abilities to acquire skills and knowledge, we can design and implement more effective learning environments. While some of the points discussed here may be impossible given the constraints of our current education system, there are some things we can do (or maybe you already do!) that can maximize children’s learning potential. One thing you can do is to teach in ways that maximizes immediate gratification! The most successful teachers are those that make their lessons enjoyable and engaging. Allow kids to interact with each other: be playful, curious, and social.
This suggestion ties into a second important point: let kids move, play, and explore with everyone, at all ages. While this strategy may be trickier depending on your school, collaborating with other teachers in other grades may provide a wonderful learning environment for your children to learn in (and learn from). These points don’t have to just take place inside of the classroom; rather they can be applied to all kinds of environments: be they playgrounds, neighborhoods, youth centers, or daycares.
Viewing the learning environment through an evolutionary lens provides us with a deeper understanding of how individuals learn and teach, especially in educational settings. Given what we’ve learned about our brain’s evolution and children’s development, it seems that educational practices need to evolve as well.
References
Gosso, Y., Otta, E., de Lima, M., Moralis, S., Ribeiro, F., & Bussab, V. (2005). “Play in Hunter-Gatherer Societies,” in A. D. Pellegrini & P. K. Smith (Eds.), The Nature of Play: Great Apes and Humans, Guildford Press. [link]
Gray, P. (2009). Play as a Foundation for Hunter-Gatherer Social Existence, American Journal of Play, 4, p. 476-522. [pdf]
Bjorklund, D. (2007) Why Youth Is NotWasted on the Young: Immaturity in Human Development. Blackwell Publishing. [link]
Bjorklund, D. (1997) The Role of Immaturity in Human Development, Psychological Bulletin, 122, p. 153-169. [pdf]
Laude, et al. (2014) Impulsivity Affects Suboptimal Gambling-Like Choice by Pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, p. 2-11. [pdf]
Addessi, et al. (2013) Delay Choice Versus Delay Maintenance: Different Measures of Delayed Gratification in Capuchin Monkeys. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 127, p. 392-398. [link]
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933-938. [pdf]
Nestojko, J.F., Bui, D.C., Kornell, N., & Bjork, E.L. (2014). Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Memory & cognition, 42(7), 1038-48. [pdf]
Cooper, D., Nemet, D., and Galassetti, P. (2004) Exercise, stress, and inflammation in the growing child: from the bench to the playground. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 16(3), p. 286-292. [link]
Burkart, J. M. et al (2014). The evolutionary origin of human hyper-cooperation. Nature communications, 5, p. [link]
It’s easy to look at the past and guffaw at human negligence related to healthy living. Smoking, now commonly known to cause lung cancer among other illness, was just a few decades ago considered a harmless social norm. Through the 1930s and 1940s, scientists argued against tobacco use without much recognition. After Federal warning had finally been issued by the Surgeon General in 1957, it still took the American public nearly 20 more years to accept confirmed toxic effects. Now, tobacco use and second-hand smoke are regulated by cities worldwide.1
Tobacco isn’t the only toxic substance that has transitioned from being freely used to practically prohibited. Lead was still being used in wall, furniture, and toy paint until the late 1970s. Mercury, a recently confirmed neurotoxin, is being removed from existing products–including dental fillings and thermometers.
Cigarettes, lead, and mercury were confirmed as biologically damaging in less than the average human lifetime. What will we collectively know “for sure” in future decades that we’re not fully aware or convinced of now? Let’s turn our attention to a rapidly growing concern (quite literally): Plastic.
On a recent trip to India, I noticed that signs posted by local vendors announced a ban on plastic bags. Upon returning to the U.S., I listened to a radio story on charging ten cents per plastic bag in New York City grocery stores. This initiative follows the promising efforts of major cities like Philadelphia and Washington D.C. to increase reusable bag use, reduce plastic waste, and reduce harm to our environment and health.
Photo by Rina Deshpande
The intention of plastic reduction initiatives is multi-fold, with two main priorities:
(1) reduce plastic waste in our environment to protect our Earth, including climate and wildlife,
(2) reduce potential health risks – known and yet to be discovered – from ingestion and exposure to plastic.
In this article, we’ll first acknowledge the already enormous presence of plastic on our Earth. We’ll then focus on how plastic enters the human body, evaluating potential risks to healthy brain development in our children, and sharing how you can help.
Plastic’s Visible and Invisible Presence
Scientists have good reason to voice their concerns about plastic pollution. You might have heard about the murky island of microplastics and debris in the Pacific Ocean known as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” If you haven’t heard of it, most recently it has been estimated to span an area as large as 5.8 million square miles depending on how high of a concentration of plastic is considered “pollution.”2
In addition to the visible tragedy of marine life getting caught in plastic soda rings, the harm of plastic is also invisible. “Photodegradation” is the gradual process of the sun breaking down plastic bags, bottles, and other products into tinier and tinier plastics.2 Plastic does not biodegrade. It breaks apart into smaller pieces. The result? Increased greenhouse gas emissions released during plastic degradation trap heat in our Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, microplastics are now part of our natural environment. The same plant life and sea animals that eat and absorb these tiny and toxic microplastics often make it to our own human dinner plates and into our bodies.
There’s a lot of information floating around about the health risks of ingesting microplastics, particularly the effect of BPA. Let’s break it down.
What is BPA?
Many of us see “BPA-free” listed on plastic bottles and feel better because BPA is something we don’t want. But what is it?
BPA stands for bisphenol A, which is a chemical building block of polycarbonate plastics. Polycarbonate plastics are the durable plastics found in everyday items from digital equipment to cars to office supplies to baby bottles.3 Since the late 1990s, research has focused on the effects of “BPA migration,” or BPA leaking from plastics into food, beverages, and therefore into our bodies.
As in studies conducted on the neurotoxicity of lead, scientists measure BPA in blood and urine and periodically revise how much is considered “safe” for infants, children, and adults.4 Bisphenol A health research is of high interest because of our now continuous exposure to it: in one study, evidence of BPA was found in a jaw-dropping 95% of 394 demographically diverse urine samples.5
While multiple studies have been conducted in the last decades, lack of alignment across experimental designs makes the impact of BPA exposure hard to compare and generalize. Still, many scientists agree that BPA is a candidate for hazardous prenatal exposure.6
BPA and prenatal brain development
In a 2015 review, molecular biologist Dr. Paola Negri-Cesi underscored that even at low doses, BPA poses higher risks during prenatal development than during adulthood.
Most studies reviewed by Dr. Negri-Cesi were conducted on rodents, whose brain development process is sequential as it is in humans, but shorter. The presence of BPA in expecting mother rats was found to possibly disrupt neurogenesis, the development of new brain cells during embryonic development.6 While the developing brain is designed to be highly adaptable to the environment, disruption to the generation of new brain cells so early on may, in some cases, affect learning, memory, and behavior through life.
Not all studies show changes in rate of neurogenesis associated with presence of BPA, but they do reveal other abnormalities in brain development. In a 2007 study, in utero exposure to low doses of BPA was associated with significant “disorderly arrangement” of brain cell organization into adulthood.7
It’s also important to recognize that some studies show no significant effect of BPA on perinatal (before and after birth) cognitive development. For example, a 2014 rat study showed that a baby rat’s exposure to BPA through its pregnant mother or through injection after birth can impact hormone levels. And yet, its performance on spatial maze and memory tasks showed no significant difference as compared to rats without BPA perinatal exposure.8 For this reason, more research is needed to understand the impact of BPA on prenatal and postnatal development.
Presently, very few studies exist on the association between BPA levels and child cognition and behavior.9 Those that are available are relatively low in sample size, with varied results between boys and girls–perhaps because of BPA’s ability to bind with estrogen receptors. More long-term research is already in progress to assess BPA levels in mothers and cognitive development in their male and female children over time.
While scientific evidence for plastic’s harm on early development is still limited, the research above reveals initial findings such as disrupted brain cell generation and disorderly arrangement of neurons even through adulthood. These results suggest that the harmful impact of plastics may begin before birth, potentially interfering with cognitive functioning throughout life.
How can we reduce the visible and invisible plastic problem?
Though much more research is required before generalizations can be made about the effects of plastic on human development, every bit can help the planet and prevent heightened risk to health. Here are a few resources that are making large strides to reducing plastic pollution on Earth:
The Container Recycling Institute offers statistics and immediate action steps to avoid, reduce, reuse, and recycle plastics and other compounds used for containers. Check out their links to recycle anything from ink cartridges to Styrofoam packing material here.
Debris Free Oceans*, based in Miami, is dedicated to educating communities, conducting cleanups which involve data collection and analysis, and informing environmental policy. Sign up to participate here.
5 Gyres is an organization that has launched 16 science expeditions to gather information about five main subtropical “gyres,” or circular currents. They’ve started a student activism group and more! Read the website here.
We are just scratching the plastic surface of BPA’s impact on cognitive development in research. Until more conclusive evidence is offered through replicated study, policies will include a relatively high cap on what is considered “safe” amounts of exposure. Until then, in the words of Dr. Negri-Cesi, let us be moved to “adopt a precautionary principle, particularly to protect [developing organisms].”6
*Special thank you to Saira Fida, C.P.A., Esq. and co-founder of Debris Free Oceans for sharing these valuable resources!
References
1 “The Reports of the Surgeon General: the 1964 Report on Smoking and Health.” Retrieved on June 28, 2016 from https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/NN/p-nid/60. [Link]
2 “The Great Pacific Garbage Patch” Encyclopedic Entry. National Geographic. Retrieved on May 23, 2016 from http://nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/. [Link]
3 “Polycarbonate Plastics and Bisphenol A Release.” Summary retrieved on May 30, 2016 from http://bisphenol-a.org/human/polyplastics.html. [Link]
4 Deshpande, R. (2016). Neurotoxicity: The Impact of Lead Exposure on Learning. [Blog]
5 Calafat AM, Kuklenyik Z, Reidy JA, Caudill SP, Ekong J, and Needham LL. 2005. Urinary concentrations of bisphenol A and 4-nonylphenol in a human reference population. Environ Health Perspect 113:391-395 [Paper]
6 Negri-Cesi, P. (n.d.). Bisphenol A Interaction With Brain Development and Functions.13(2), 2015, Vol.13(2). [Paper]
7 Nakamura, Itoh, Sugimoto, & Fushiki. (2007). Prenatal exposure to bisphenol A affects adult murine neocortical structure.Neuroscience Letters,420(2), 100-105. [Paper]
8 Sadowski, Park, Neese, Ferguson, Schantz, & Juraska. (2014). Effects of perinatal bisphenol A exposure during early development on radial arm maze behavior in adult male and female rats.Neurotoxicology and Teratology,42, 17-24. [Paper]
9 Braun, J., Yolton, K., Dietrich, K., Hornung, R., Ye, X., Calafat, A., & Lanphear, B. (2009). Prenatal Bisphenol A Exposure and Early Childhood Behavior. Environmental Health Perspectives,117(12), 1945-1952. [Paper]
In our quest to assess and compare educational outcomes of students, teachers, schools, districts, states, and nations might we be losing sight of the characteristics of a fulfilling educational experience? Counting What Counts: Reframing Education Evaluation, a 2016 book edited by Yong Zhao, argues that this may be the case. He and his colleagues suggest ways to measure what matters so that we can create a more personalized, diverse, authentic, collaborative, and ultimately successful educational system. Zhao, a professor in the college of education at the University of Oregon and a professorial fellow at Victoria University in Australia, is a prolific writer of topics related to changes in education as a function of globalization and technology. Counting What Counts and other works of his like Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon will appeal to those disillusioned by America’s testing obsession, interested in developing students’ talents outside of just reading and math (e.g., in the arts or leadership), and concerned about creating an educational system that will prepare the members of our workforce with the skills they will need to make our economy prosper.
Zhao states that, as nations focus on improving standardized test scores, they may indeed produce better test takers. Yet, they may lose sight of their larger goal of creating a well-educated citizenry and diverse and functional work force. He and his colleagues explain that our current testing system is flawed in several ways. First, motivation and inter- and intra-personal skills matter tremendously for one’s success in life, but these skills are rarely tested. Second, thriving workforces have people with a diversity of interests, talents, and perspectives. Standardized testing, which creates a culture that values a homogenized student body, is counter-productive to creating the diverse workforce in which economies thrive (not to mention, in which individuals feel fulfilled by their ability to develop their natural strengths). In particular, in an era when we are able to spend more of our resources on goods that satisfy psychological, rather than physical, needs there is growing demand for traditionally undervalued skills, such as artistic skills. As such, we neglect at our own peril to cultivate these. Finally, standardized tests dampen creativity and entrepreneurship. They do not test skills that matter for innovation and success, such as working with people of other cultures, communicating with diverse others, thinking complexly about global challenges. They do not measure self-confidence, hopefulness, social capital, teamwork, conscientiousness, openness to new experiences, empathy, curiosity, and passion. Further, the limited skills that are measured by common standardized tests (e.g., IQ tests, SATs, PISA) are only marginally correlated with measures of long term success.
As flawed as current standardized testing schemes are, Zhao recognizes that testing is valuable and necessary for helping students succeed, holding educators and educational institutions accountable, and differentiating among students. As such, Zhao argues for overhauling current accountability systems. A redefined testing system might improve the quality of education that students receive. Throughout Counting What Counts, Zhao and his colleagues discuss the benefits and limitations of several alternative tools that could be used to measure some traits that matter for academic and personal success. He argues that changing the testing culture matters because some of the most important skills we hope to instill in students, such as creativity, may not need to be taught per se, but rather, students need to grow in a culture where those skills are valued.
Finally, Zhao concludes with a beautiful, idealistic vision for education and the role that changing assessment systems play in bring about that vision. He calls for a paradigm shift that: 1) values personalized education; 2) focuses on long-term success, rather than short-term measures of knowledge retention; 3) is mindful of unintended consequences that can result from focusing exclusively on particular outcomes; 4) assesses students in a way that is authentic to how they will use their knowledge and the skills they value; and 5) promotes collaboration among the assessors and the assessed, so that there is comprehensive consensus about whether what is being assessed matters. Although perhaps hard to realize, the educational vision Zhao articulates is one in which students are likely to thrive and feel fulfilled. We would be well served to work towards bringing about Zhao’s attractive vision for our educational system in order to support our students and our work force.
Zhao, Y. (Ed.). (2016). Counting what counts: Reframing education evaluation. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Boston, MA – Dr. Kou Murayama from the University of Reading was presented with the “2016 Transforming Education Through Neuroscience Award” for his contributions to the field of Mind, Brain and Education during the Learning & the Brain® educational conference in Boston, MA.
A groundbreaking researcher whose research lies at the intersection of education and cognitive neuroscience was awarded the ninth annual prize for “Transforming Education Through Neuroscience.” The award was established to honor individuals who represent excellence in bridging neuroscience and education and is funded by the Learning & the Brain® Foundation. The $2,500 award will be used to support translational efforts bridging scientific findings and classroom practice.
Kou Murayama, PhD, is being honored for his work on motivation and cognition from the neural level to the social level. Dr. Murayama received his Doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of Tokyo in 2006 and did his post-doctoral work at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, the University of Rochester, the University of Munich and UCLA. Now at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom, Dr. Murayama is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience where he runs the Motivation Lab.
Dr. Murayama’s research on motivation has potentially large implications for the field of education. His research focuses on a number of questions about the function and the architecture of human motivation from both theoretical (especially focusing on the theories of achievement goals, intrinsic motivation, and reinforcement learning) and practical (especially educational) perspectives. Some of these questions revolve on how motivation can enhance learning, the nature of intrinsic motivation, and metamotivation. His laboratory uses a multi-method approach by drawing upon a variety of methodologies such as behavioral experiments, large sample surveys, neuroimaging (i.e., fMRI), experience sampling, meta-analysis, behavioral genetics analysis, mathematical modeling, and intervention in order to understand motivation from different perspectives.
According to Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, EdD, who is Associate Professor of Education, Psychology and Neuroscience at the Rossier School of Education and Associate Professor of Psychology at the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California, Dr. Murayama is “an exceptionally talented and prodigious scholar who is conducting groundbreaking interdisciplinary research integrating cognitive scientific, neuroscientific and educational research approaches.” She also said that “his work is remarkable for its creativity and innovation in both neuroscientific and educational domains.”
Last year’s award winner, Fumiko Hoeft called Dr. Murayama “…a truly talented researcher bridging many fields.” David B. Daniel, PhD, Professor of Psychology at James Madison University and the 2013 winner of the award, also had praise for the new recipient. “Dr. Murayama is engaging in important synthetic and complex scholarship that promises to encourage innovative theory as well as practical educational import.”
Dr. Daniel presented the prize to Dr. Murayama at the Learning & the Brain® educational conference in Boston, MA on Saturday, November 19, held at the Westin Copley Hotel. The Learning & the Brain® Foundation wishes Dr. Murayama our heartiest congratulations.
