October 2018 – Page 2 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content
Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

I met yesterday with several thoughtful teachers who had resonant questions about education research.

class length

How do we balance factual learning and deep thinking?

What’s “the right amount of stress” during a test?

How can we promote collaboration while honoring individual differences?

And:

What’s the optimal class length?

This question comes up often. Should we have lots of short classes, so every subject meets every day? Should we have a few longer classes, so that we can dig deeply into a particular topic without interruption?

Debates sometimes fall along disciplinary lines. Foreign language and math teachers often want frequent class meetings; English and History teachers typically like bigger chunks of time for discussions.

Science teachers just gotta have 80 minutes to run a lab well.

But: what does research show?

Class Length: What Research Tells Us

As far as I know, we just don’t have a clear answer to that question.

Over at the Education Endowment Fund, for example, they’ve investigated the benefits of block scheduling: that is, a few long periods rather than several short ones.

The finding: we can’t really say. Or, to quote EEF: “There is no consistent pattern in the evidence.”

More precisely:

The evidence suggests that how teachers use the time they are allocated is more important than the length of lesson or the schedule of lessons, and hence that the introduction of block scheduling is unlikely to raise attainment by itself.

By implication, a change away from block scheduling shouldn’t raise attainment either.

The point is not how long we teach but how well we teach with the time we’ve got.

For this reason, I often counsel schools and teachers: before you change your schedule, study human attention systems.

Once teachers know how attention works — and, it’s A LOT more complicated that we might have thought — we’ll be much better at helping students learn. (If you have the chance to attend a Learning and the Brain session about attention: RUN, don’t walk.)

Class Length: What Research Can’t Tell Us

Research doesn’t answer this question, I think, because it can’t. There’s no one correct answer.

If you teach 2nd graders or 7th graders or 11th graders, you’ll probably find that different lengths of time work better.

If you teach in cultures that inculcate patience and concentration, longer classes will work better than in cultures with a more get-up-and-go kind of pace.

The number of students in the class might matter.

The experience of the teacher almost certainly matters.

When your school starts investigating schedules, therefore, I suggest you start with these essentials:

First: study human attention.

Second: don’t design “the optimal schedule.” Design the optimal schedule for your school and your students. It might not work at anyone else’s school, but it doesn’t need to.

A schedule that works for you and your students is the closest to optimal that you can get.

Is It Time to Re-Re-Think Mindset Research?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Mindset doubts have been haunting education for a while now.

mindset doubts

Most dramatically, a recent meta-analysis including more than 300 studies makes it clear that colorful growth-mindset posters won’t cure all our problems. (BTW: this meta-analysis included data from almost 370,000 participants. Wow.)

Combined with general concerns about the replication crisis in psychology, and some actual non-replications, this analysis has put Mindset Theory under a cloud.

Mindset Doubts in Context

Of course, we should always doubt research findings. Science, after all, is a way of practicing effective skepticism.

At the same time, doubts don’t require wholesale rejection.

While it’s certainly true that “colorful growth-mindset posters won’t cure all our problems,” I don’t think anyone has seriously claimed that they would. (Well: maybe people who sell colorful growth-mindset posters.)

Instead, the theory makes this claim: we can help students think one way (growth mindset) more often than another way (fixed mindset). When they do…

…they have more helpful goals in school.

…they have a healthier perspective on the difficulties that regularly accompany learning.

…and, they respond more effectively to academic struggle.

This process doesn’t require a revolution. It asks for a general change in emphasis. For some students, this new emphasis increases motivation and learning.

Research Continues

While that big meta-analysis got lots of headlines, other useful studies have recently come out. For example:

This meta-analysis found that a well-known mindset technique largely works. When students study how brains change as they learn (“neuroplasticity”), they develop growth mindsets. And, they learn more stuff.

This recent study shows that even a “one-shot” mindset intervention has lasting effects. The researchers tested this idea over two years with four different high-school cohorts. They’ve got lots of data.

This study suggests that encouraging people to adopt a growth mindset likewise encourages them to become more “intellectually humble.” Lord knows we can all use some more intellectual humility these days.

The point is not that we should reject all mindset doubts.

The point is that one meta-analysis should not end all discussion of a theory that’s been researched for 40+ years.

We should not, of course, ask mindset to solve all our problems. Nor should we ask retrieval practice to solve all problems. Or short bursts of in-class exercise.

No one change fixes everything.

Instead, we should see Mindset Theory as one useful tool that can help many of our students.

Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

We know that our students spend too much time sitting down. They’re antsy and unhappy, and — increasingly — overweight. Wouldn’t it be great if we could add even quick exercise breaks into the class day?

quick exercise

Of course, we have lots of reasons to be skeptical about this possibility.

Even if we get them to move more in class, they might just be more sedentary later in the day.

If they burn more calories at school, they might eat more later on.

And: let’s be practical. If we get our students up and moving around, it might take FOREVER to get them settled back down again.

Which is to say: if they move more, they might learn less.

Quick Exercise Breaks: The Research

A research team has been exploring each of these questions, and they’ve got LOTS of good news.

In brief, almost  all of these fears are groundless.

We were right to be skeptical, right to ask all those questions. But the answers turn out to be: “not to worry!”

For example: students who get extra exercise in class don’t spend more time on the couch later on.

They don’t eat more either.

They plain old feel better.

And — here’s some great news: they get back to work in about 30 seconds. (They learn the same amount as their sedentary peers, by the way.)

The Bad News?

Honestly, there’s just not much bad news here. The worst researchers could report is that they didn’t quite meet their goals.

They wanted teachers to do ten quick exercise breaks, but they averaged only five.

Given all the other good news, I’m thinking we can live with this.

By the way: we might have hoped that the exercise would help students learn — not just fail to impede learning.

Research into that question is complex. Here’s a link to a recent article on the subject.

In the meanwhile: here’s a fun video on the Michigan research project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq5xVgClIsw