Skip to main content
TOP RESEARCHERS TO EXPLORE THE BRAIN SCIENCE OF INNOVATION, CREATIVITY, CRITICAL THINKING, AND CURIOSITY
landb
landb

MEDIA ADVISORY

January 29, 2017

Contact:

Kristin Dunay

(781)-449-4010 x 104

[email protected]

 

THE SCIENCE OF INNOVATION: TEACHING STUDENTS TO THINK, CREATE, INNOVATE, IMAGINE, AND INSPIRE

WHAT: With jobs becoming increasingly automated, it has become more important than ever for our students to have a creative and innovative mindset for the future. Next month, a distinguished group of cognitive scientists, psychologists, and innovative educators will gather before 1,700 educators at the Learning & the Brain® Conference in San Francisco, CA, to explore the “Science of Innovation” and how it can be applied to today’s education needs. The speakers will discuss new brain research on innovation, imagination, and creativity, and strategies to train creativity and innovation; will explain ways to develop innovative mindsets in students, schools, and leaders; and will show how promoting creativity, imagination, and daydreaming can improve student memory, motivation, and achievement.

 

SPONSORS: 

The program is co-sponsored by several organizations including the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University, both Neuroscape and the Laboratory of Educational NeuroScience (brainLENS) at the University of California, San Francisco, The Building Blocks of Cognition Lab at the University of California, Berkeley; The Neuroscience Research Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the Mind, Brain and Education Program at Harvard Graduate School of Education, the Comer School Development Program at the Yale University School of Medicine, The Dana Foundation’s Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, Edutopia and The George Lucas Educational Foundation, the Learning & the Brain Foundation and both national associations of elementary and secondary school principals. The event is produced by Public Information Resources, Inc.

 

FACULTY: 

Renowned Neuroscientist David M. Eagleman, PhD, will present “The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World and Education” during a keynote on Thursday, February 15. Dr. Eagleman, Director of the Laboratory for Perception and Action at Stanford University School of Medicine, host of the Emmy-nominated PBS series The Brain, and author of The Brain: The Story of You (2017) and Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain (2012), will examine human creativity through the lens of brain science, will discuss the essential elements of this critical human ability, and will provide a pathway to more creative systems of education.

 

In addition to Dr. Eagleman, the program features some other leading experts on the learning sciences including:

Alison M. Gopnik, DPhil, Renowned Child Psychologist; Professor of Psychology and Affiliate Professor of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley; Author, The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children (2016); Co-Author, “Learning to Learn from Stories: Children’s Developing Sensitivities to the Causal Structure of Fictional Worlds” (2017, Child Development) and “What Happens to Creativity As We Age?” (2017, The New York Times

George Couros, MEd, Division Principal of Innovative Teaching and Learning, Parkland School Division, Alberta, Canada; Former Classroom Teacher; Author, The Innovator’s Mindset: Empower Learning, Unleash Talent and Lead a Culture of Creativity (2015)

Larry Robertson, MBA, Founder and President, Lighthouse Consulting; Author, The Language of Man: Learning to Speak Creativity (2016) and A Deliberate Pause: Entrepreneurship and Its Moment in Human Progress (2009)

 

Charles K. Fadel, MBA, Founder and Chairman, Center for Curriculum Redesign; Senior Fellow at the Partnership for 21st Century Learning; Visiting Practitioner, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Co-Author, Four-Dimensional Education: The Competencies Learners Need to Succeed (2015) and 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times (2009)

 

Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, EdD, Professor of Education, Psychology and Neuroscience, Brain and Creativity Institute and Rossier School of Education; Associate Professor of Psychology, Brain and Creativity Institute, University of Southern California; Co-Author, “How Social–Emotional Imagination Facilitates Deep Learning and Creativity in the Classroom” (2016, Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom)

 

Todd B. Kashdan, PhD, Professor of Psychology; Senior Scientist, Center for the Advancement of Wellbeing; Director, The Wellbeing Lab, George Mason University; Author, “What Erroneous Beliefs Do You Have About Resilience: New Research on Resilience Around the World” (2017, Psychology Today), “Personality Strengths as Resilience: A One-Year, Multiwave Study” (2016, Journal of Personality), and The Upside of Your Dark Side (2014)

 

Jonathan A. Gottschall, PhD, Distinguished Fellow, English Department, Washington & Jefferson College; Author, The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human (2013) and The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative (2005)

 

Tina Seelig, PhD, Neuroscientist; Executive Director, Stanford Technology Ventures Program (STVP); Professor of the Practice, Department of Management, Science and Engineering, Stanford University; Author, Creativity Rules: Get Ideas Out of Your Head and into the World (2017), Insight Out: Get Ideas Out of Your Head and into the World (2015), and Innovation Engine: A Crash Course on Creativity (2014)

WHEN: Thursday, February 15 – Saturday, February 17. Conference begins 1:00 PM. General registration is $599 through February 2 and $619 after February 2. Contact Kristin Dunay at 781-449-4010 x 104 for media passes.
WHERE: Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, CA

Learning & the Brain® is a series of educational conferences that brings the latest research in the learning sciences and their potential applications to education to the wider educational community. Since its inception in 1999, more than 50,000 people in Boston, San Francisco, and New York have attended this series.

Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

A friend remembered to send me an article on the perils of forgetting.

In particular, if you read piles of books, you’re much less likely to remember the specifics of each one. The same holds true if you binge-watch This is Us or Mr. Robot. Or power your way through three movies in an afternoon.

Author Julie Beck explores the science behind this irksome truth.

For instance, she helpfully cites Betsy Sparrow’s research into the perils of Google. In brief, if I think a piece of information is available on Google, I’m less likely to remember it in the future.

Read the whole thing. And remember: quiz yourself about the article later…

[h/t Chris Brady]

Military Parents Serving Overseas: What Happens To The Children?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

deployment hinders learning

We got a Twitter question earlier this week about the educational experience of military children. A quick review of the research suggests we can start to answer this question: does military deployment hinder learning for those children?

The most comprehensive study I found looks at data for over 56,000 (!) children. Researchers Engel, Gallagher, and Lyle wanted to know: when a parent goes away on deployment, what happens to their child’s academic performance?

Of course, parental absence might well upset children and prompt greater academic struggles. Children typically benefit from the structure that intact households can provide.

The researchers also hypothesize that deployment might improve academic performance. The child, they reason, might develop a greater sense of responsibility when one parent is away. Or, perhaps, the extra household income that comes from “hostile fire pay” might benefit learning.

So, which is it?

Military Deployment Hinders Learning, Slightly…

Engel, Gallagher, and Lyle found that a parent’s absence because of deployment does affect their children’s learning.

Specifically, deployment itself brings down standardized test scores 0.42%; each additional month prompts and additional 0.11% reduction. The averages are slightly higher in math and science, and lower in reading in social sciences and reading.

Importantly, these effects last. Engel & Co. found that these children were still slightly behind their peers four years later. By the fifth year, however, they had — on average — fully caught up.

The researchers got data only for those children who attend on-base schools. Engel & Co. argue that schools run by the military are better equipped to help these students than other school systems, and so the gaps may be even greater for children in school off base.

These data, by the way, come only from army bases. There’s no obvious reason that the numbers would be different for other branches of the military.

What to make of these numbers?

On the one hand, 0.11%/month hardly seems like much. That’s one tenth of a percentage point — hardly enough to notice.

On the other hand, those numbers add up quickly. For a 12-month deployment — with the initial decrement of 0.42% — that adds up to almost two full percentage points. Knowing that students experience even greater difficulties in math and science, we can genuinely worry about their progress in these disciplines.

And, this pattern creates problems for lots of families. In 2007, 700,000 children saw a parent leave on military deployment.

When we’re talking about that number of children, we should be keenly interested in helping.

How We Can Help?

In the first place, it’s important for teachers to know about these data. When a student’s parent deploys, we should be on the lookout for some initial academic difficulties. And, we should know that they might well increase over time.

Math and science teachers in particular should keep this potential on their radar.

The best way to help, of course, will vary. Perhaps a teacher can provide extra support and understanding. Perhaps a school has programs that provide much-needed structure.

We should also note that these problems might linger. Few of us are surprised that a child whose parent is leaving experiences distress, or that this distress might lead to academic struggle.

However, we might well be surprised that this struggle can last for years. And so, we should keep our eyes on those students whose parents have recently deployed, and also those whose parents have returned in the last few years.

At the same time, we should keep in mind that this research reports averages. Some students clearly struggle during this difficult time. However, not all of them do. Some might — as the researchers initially hypothesized — see a parent’s absence as a time to assume greater responsibility.

Clearly, student resilience is an important story in these data.

With this information in mind, teachers and schools can better serve the children whose parents are serving their country.

Beware: Too Much Structure Hinders Creativity (for Experts)
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

structure inhibits creativity

How can teachers foster our students’ creativity?

To explore that question, we can also reverse it: what inhibits creativity?

Two researchers at the University of Toronto wondered if information structure hinders creativity.  That is: do we interfere with imaginative impulses if we give people information within clear and logical hierarchies.

If that’s true, could we encourage creativity by presenting information in unstructured ways?

100 Nouns

Kim and Zhong explored this possibility with two different research paradigms.

In the first, they gave college students lists of 100 nouns and asked them “to generate as many sentences as they want” using those words.

Half of these students were given nouns in obvious groupings. All the “games” were listed together: chess, bingo, backgammon. All the “bodies of water”: river, ocean, waterfall. All the “tools,” “pieces of jewelry,” and “trees.” In other words, students got these nouns within a clearly structured system.

The other half of the students saw those 100 nouns listed in a jumble: meteor, wildebeest, soccer, hotel, Ukraine. This second list, clearly, lacks any coherent system.

When the sentences that students wrote were rated for creativity, researchers found a clear difference. Students who saw nouns in a structured list wrote notably less creative sentences that those who saw the jumbled list.

For these students, logical structure hinders creativity. Absence of that structure promotes it.

Lego Aliens

To be sure of their conclusion, Kim and Zhong then asked different students to build an alien out of Lego bricks.

As you’ve already predicted, half of the participants got their Legos pre-sorted by shape and color. The other half got the same pieces all mixed together in a bin.

Here again, structure reduced creativity. Legos mixed together prompted more creative aliens than Legos sorted into tidy categories.

“Structure hinders creativity”: classroom implications

Reading this study, teachers who value creativity might be tempted to reduce cognitive structures as much as possible.

Here’s my advice: DON’T DO THAT.

Why? Beginners need structure to learn. This study was done with experts. College students are already very good at writing sentences. They devoted childhood years to building objects out of Lego.

In other words, they were not learning a new skill. They were, instead, being creative with a well-tuned skill.

For this reason, we should take this study as guidance for student creativity in skills they have already mastered. For skills they are still learning, students need lots of guidance, and structure.

A Bilingual Advantage in New Language Acquisition?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

According to this new study, bilinguals learn new languages faster than monolinguals.

To reach this conclusion, this research looked at brain wave signatures as participants learned an artificial language.

AdobeStock_54036442_Credit

(Understanding electroencephalogram research is always tricky. Don’t feel bad if you’re not totally clear on what a P600 might be.)

The short version is this. As they learned this new language, neural patterns for  bilinguals resembled native speaker patterns relatively quickly. Those patterns for the monolinguals developed more slowly.

Limitation to Bilingual Advantage Research

We can’t be sure that this finding extrapolates to the real world. After all, this particular artificial language has only 13 words in it–four nouns, two adjectives, two adverbs, and so forth.

However, the study does tentatively support a widely-believed conclusion: the hardest language to learn is the second…

(By the way: we’ve posted about the potential benefits and detriments of bilingual education several times in the last year. You can click on “bilingual education” in the tags list on the right to see other articles.)

Growth Mindsets Help All Subgroups Learn
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Growth mindset helps subgroups

Research into Growth Mindsets often focuses on small groups of people: a class or two of 5th graders, a few dozen college students.

These studies allow researchers to draw conclusions about this specific group of students. However, we’re less sure about the sub-populations.

How does Mindset influence English Language Learners? Female students? Students from different social strata?

(more…)

Surprise! Less Oxytocin Might Improve Social Interaction
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

 Oxytocin downside

The hormone/neurotransmitter oxytocin has developed a great brand.

It gets credit for all sorts of good things. When new lovers meet, their giddy glow might result from oxytocin. When mothers hold their babies, oxytocin seems to widen their smiles.

Little wonder, then, that oxytocin has earned the nickname “the love hormone.”

(more…)

The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by Anthony Brandt and David Eagleman
Rebecca Gotlieb
Rebecca Gotlieb


Humans are driven to create and innovate. In fact, this drive is what fuels our success as a species. Anthony Brandt, a musical composer, and David Eagleman, a neuroscientist, partnered to co-author The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World. In it, they argue that it is human to engage in “what-if” thinking. The show that creativity is shaped by culture and time period. Across domains—the arts, business, science—we innovate by breaking, bending, and blending what already exists, taking risks, engaging in the social side of creativity, and generating lots of ideas, even if many ultimately are discarded. Finally, they suggests applications of these principles of creativity to the boardroom and the classroom.

Familiarity can feel comfortable, but too much of it leads to boredom. The challenge is that newness becomes normalized. Indeed, our brains show suppressed activation to stimuli upon repeated exposure. As such, we are constantly driven to innovate, to find the next new idea to stimulate us. The process of innovating requires a balancing act. We balance exploring new ideas with exploiting strategies that we already know work. We balance using what already exists with making improvements to it. We balance desirable novelty with outlandish novelty.

Brandt and Eagleman argue that most innovation occurs through breaking, bending, or blending. Breaking describes the process of taking apart something formerly whole and assembling the pieces in a new way. We engage in breaking every time we use abbreviations, acronyms, or synecdoches. Innovation can arise from bending—making a variation on a common theme, or reinventing a classic work. Blending occurs when we weave together disparate knowledge to create something new in this mixture. The extent to which any of these modes of innovation are seen as creativity is shaped by one’s cultural milieu. Because creativity depends so much on public reception, artists are rarely lonely, isolated figures, even though they are depicted as such in media. Innovators take great risks to depart from the norm. In order to gauge the success of those risks, they need feedback. As such, creators are social by necessity. Another myth about the creative process is that it happens after a flash of insight causes one to perceive a new idea. In reality, creativity comes from generating a myriad of ideas, each of which is a variation or combination of ideas that preceded it.

As our economy evolves, especially with increased atomization and emerging technologies, creativity and cognitive flexibility will become increasingly critical. Schools and companies can be the perfect environment for fostering individual’s creativity and capitalizing on the benefits thereof. Too often, however, they stifle creativity. Companies, Brandt and Eagleman advise, should be versatile and diversified in the ideas and projects they support. While the means to enhanced creativity in the workforce will continue to change (e.g., open-office plans are not a panacea), building a corporate culture that flexibly changes routines and incentivizes new ideas may be the best recipe for innovation. Similarly, schools should create assignments in which students need to generate a variety of solutions to real-world problems and determine new ways to find solutions. Schools should motivate students to stick with challenging problems, praise their effort rather than results, and invest in arts education. Brandt and Eagleman emphasize that we all have enormous potential to be creative, and thus we need to invest in everyone’s development, and not discriminate based on assumptions about which gender or other identity group is most likely to contribute.

With illuminative examples of creativity across fields, Brandt and Eagleman, effectively explain why creativity is so important to human success and advancement, how we make creative products, and what practices we can implement to enhance creativity. To read additional works by Eagleman read our review of his book The Brain: The Story of You.

 

Brandt, A., & Eagleman, D., (2017). The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World. New York, NY: Catapult.

Don’t Be Fooled by the Learning Pyramid Myth
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

AdobeStock_121864954 [Converted]_Credit

You have no doubt seen the tidy pyramid: students remember 5% of what they hear in a lecture, 10% of what they read, 20% of what they see, and so forth.

In crafting such a pyramid, its creators promote more active kinds of learning. The bottom of the pyramid, for example, might be “teaching others”: a highly active kind of learning that seems to generate all sorts of learning.

The Learning Pyramid Myth

The problem with the pyramid is not merely that it’s inaccurate, but that it’s incoherent. The Effortful Educator does a nice job of pointing out its obvious flaws, and of backing up his critique with specific sources.

As an easy introduction to that critique: any research producing numbers that are all divisible by 5 does seem rather suspicious…

(I first heard this critique from Charles Fadel at a Learning and the Brain conference in San Francisco 3 or 4 years ago. It just so happens that he’ll be speaking at the upcoming LatB conference–although on a different subject.)

The important lesson here goes beyond “always check the sources.” After all, if you look to see if this pyramid has been published elsewhere, you’ll find all sorts of examples.

Instead, the point is “always check the specific claims.” In this case, for example, you don’t need to see if someone has published a similar pyramid before; you need to see how the author supports the specific claim that students remember only 5% of what they hear in a lecture.

In fact, you should be most interested in research that focuses on students like yours.

Let’s imagine you found a study showing that students in a college art history class remembered 80% of what they heard in a lecture. That’s very interesting to college art history teachers–especially those who teach in the same way this particular professor does.

But, if you teach 5th graders, it doesn’t really help you very much.

Graphical representation of data can be inspiring: that’s one reason to be certain that the information in the graphic is correct.

[Addendum: 1/27/18] I’ve recently gotten some additional data on the “Learning Pyramid” from Charles Fadel. Enjoy!

Fadel Multimodal Learning Through Media – What the research says