Skip to main content

Yearly Archives: 2018

Older posts
Newer posts
The Self-Control Paradox: Resistance is (Often) Futile
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September-20-2018

The Self-Control Paradox: Resistance is (Often) Futile

Read More

Oscar Wilde famously said that he could resist everything but temptation.

This may be the only way that I’m a lot like Wilde. You, too, probably resemble this great Irish wit.

self-control paradox

Misunderstanding Self-Control

Self-control seems like a straightforward concept.

In front of me is a slice of chocolate cake. Or pizza. Or the very latest tech gizmo.

I really want it. Like, a lot.

But I steel myself and, like Odysseus resisting the Sirens, I deny myself this treat. That’s self-control.

Much of the research into self-control resembles this scenario. Roy Baumeister, one of the best-known self-control researchers, often asked study participants to resist chocolate chip cookies.

If you can resist freshly-baked chocolate chip cookies…well…that’s self-control.

Clearly, if we want to helps our students with self-control, we should help them resist such temptations.

The Self-Control Paradox

Or, maybe not.

Maybe you, and me, and Oscar Wilde are all really bad at resisting temptation. Maybe that’s not how self-control works at all.

Instead, in one of the most interesting psychology studies I’ve read, several researchers come to a different conclusion.

People who successfully resist temptation don’t stare down the chocolate chip cookies and boldly exert their self-control.

Instead, they use their self-control to avoid temptation in the first place.

That’s right: effective self-control isn’t exactly self-control. Instead, people who score highest on measures of self-control use it to develop virtuous habits and avoid tempting situations.

The reason I’m good at, say, staying on my diet is NOT that I resist cupcakes.

Instead, I’m good at dieting because a) I have gotten in the habit of making a salad, and b) my lunchtime walk never approaches the pizza joint.

I never have to resist temptation, because I use self-control to avoid temptation in the first place.

Odysseus, Reconsidered

Come to think of it: Odysseus didn’t use his self-control to resist the Sirens. He was, after all, tied to the mast at the time he sailed past them.

Instead, he used his self-control to prepare for temptation. Because he knew he couldn’t resist it, he made a plan to ensure the temptation wouldn’t lead him astray.

If we want our students to improve their executive functioning, if we want them to get better at self-control, then we should not focus on resisting temptation.

Instead, we should focus on avoiding temptation.

Resistance might be futile. But: the self-control paradox suggests we can bypass resistance altogether.

 

Twice Exceptional: Supporting and Educating Bright and Creative Students With Learning Difficulties by Scott Barry Kaufman
Rebecca Gotlieb
Rebecca Gotlieb
September-19-2018

Twice Exceptional: Supporting and Educating Bright and Creative Students With Learning Difficulties by Scott Barry Kaufman

Read More

Students who have both exceptional talents and learning difficulties have been understudied and underserved in the educational system. Fortunately, Twice Exceptional: Supporting and Educating Bright and Creative Students with Learning Difficulties helps shed light on this unique and diverse population.  This volume contains contributions from over 30 talented scholars and practioners and was edited by Scott Barry Kaufman, who brings a special sensitivity to the topic because of his own experiences as a twice exceptional (2E) student. Kaufman, whose books we have reviewed previously (see here and here) envisions an educational system in which every student receives individualized, challenging, and supportive instruction. Until that dream is realized, it is especially important to provide that kind of individualization to 2E students or students who “demonstrate exceptional levels of capacity, competence, commitment, or creativity in one or more domains coupled with one or more learning difficulties” (P. 7). This book, filled with examples of students with varying 2E profiles, provides guidance about best practices for identifying and supporting 2E students, spotlights specific 2E sub-populations, and concludes with examples of schools that successfully support 2E students.

Although there is research that recognized 2E students dating back to the 1920s, federal education laws have been slow to do so.  In the 1980s there was a shift in gifted education towards recognizing a greater variety of gifts and trying to develop students’ talents rather than assuming that students are either gifted or not. It was not until 2004 that federal disability laws first acknowledged that students with disabilities can also be gifted. Today, parents still face resistance in getting services for 2E children. For example, while 7% of the general student population participates in gifted education, only 1% of students who receive disability services are involved in gifted education.

Contributing to this problem may be difficulties related to defining and assessing both “disability” and “giftedness.’ Additionally, the interacting effects of students’ disabilities and giftedness can contribute to the students’ unique profiles not being recognized. That is one’s exceptionality can hide his disabilities (making adults characterize the student as lazy), one’s disabilities can hide her exceptionalities (making adults underestimate the student’s potential), or one’s disabilities and exceptionalities can each mask the other (making adults miss great potential and great need for support). What 2E students need is to have their unique intersections of exceptionality carefully described and monitored across time and context. Several chapters in this collection provide guidelines for comprehensively assessing students’ learning profiles.

2E students need their strengths, talents, and interests developed.  Unfortunately, too much attention is given to compensating for these student’s weaknesses rather than developing their strengths.  We should strive to help them reach their fullest potential.  We should support students in being assertive self-advocates. When they can advocate for themselves they typically set higher expectations for themselves than others would set for them. Beyond self-advocacy, tending to and developing the social-emotional needs and abilities of 2E students is important for helping them have the resilience to persist through the difficulties they will inevitably face in school. Another key principle for supporting 2E students is creating effective collaboration among family members, teachers, friends, coaches, psychologists, and medical professionals. This book offers several strategies for strengthening the relationship between families and schools.

Several chapters in Twice Exceptional profile certain categories of 2E populations and offer strategies for supporting these populations with a strengths-based approach.  For example, attention deficit hyperactive disorder could be reframed as an attention divergent hyperactive gift.  Similar ideas are applied to students with autism spectrum disorders, sensory processing issues, and dyslexia or other reading disorders.

One of the most valuable contributions of this book is the focus in two chapters, on an especially underserved 2E sub-population—that of 2E students who are also racial or ethnic minorities. For several problematic reasons, students of color are underrepresented in gifted education. Having other exceptionalities compounds this problem further. To serve 2E students of color it is important to remain flexible, set high expectations, offer role models, and be creative about how to draw out these students’ strengths.

Twice Exceptional concludes by describing real model schools that are designed to support 2E students.  These schools celebrate strengths, differentiate curriculum, incorporate social-emotional learning into academic learning, provide a safe space filled with positive peer and teacher relationship, and remain flexible, patient, and optimistic.  Above all, they develop autonomy in their students by encouraging the 2E students to assume primary responsibility for shaping their learning.

Kaufman’s Twice Exceptionaloffers a much need consolidation of information about 2E students to raise awareness about this population and help researchers, parents, and educators better serve 2E students.

Kaufman, S. B. (Ed.). (2018). Twice Exceptional: Supporting and Educating Bright and Creative Students with Learning Difficulties. Oxford University Press.

Do We Actually Know What We Think We Know?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September-18-2018

Do We Actually Know What We Think We Know?

Read More

Teachers worry a lot about stress. For that reason, this blog regularly scans research updates for useful news about stress and stress reduction techniques.

replication crisis

(In fact, I posted about potential benefits of stress just two weeks ago.)

One of our favorite studies offers a surprisingly simple approach to stress reduction: writing about it.

We like this study so much, we’ve posted about it twice: here and here.

So here’s an important question: do we actually know that the strategy works?

Put in a different way: how do psychologists and neuroscientists know what they claim to know?

Replication, Replication Crisis

To answer this question, we can describe research methodology. The ritual of science publication, in fact, requires almost gruesomely soporific descriptions of EXACTLY what the scientists did.

(What computer model did they use? What software version did they use? What size was the font? How far away from the computer did the participants sit? You get the idea…)

Here’s another answer: to be sure we know what we know, we double check. When one group of researchers arrives at a conclusion — especially an exciting or novel conclusion — other researchers see if they get the same result.

To be fancy, we can say they try to “replicate” the original result. As we get more replications, we feel more confident that we know.

Here’s the problem: psychology is facing a replication crisis.

A Case in Point: Writing About Stress

In recent years, more and more psychology studies just don’t replicate. We thought we knew, but now we’re not so sure.

For example: that study we love? The one about “reducing stress by writing about it?” A new replication crisis project tried to replicate it, and got no results.

In this replication, the benefits of writing about stress were…nada.

In fact, this group of researchers tried to replicate all 21 studies published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Depending on how you count, 13 of them replicated. That means that eight of them did not replicate.

YIKES.

What’s a Teacher to Do?

This news might seem like a disaster. If so much research doesn’t replicate, we might be tempted to stop relying on science in our teaching.

Although understandable, this dis-spirited conclusion goes too far. Instead, the replication crisis should remind us of two essential points:

First: teachers should adopt teaching ideas that have lots of research support.

If you see one study suggesting that (say) chewing gum helps students convert fractions to decimals, DO NOT adopt that technique. At a minimum, you should look to see if other researchers have replicated that finding.

In fact, you’d like several researchers to have explored this idea — preferably in different grades and schools, with different research paradigms.

(You should also weigh the other pluses and minuses. All that gum chewing might be really distracting.)

Second: we should be ready to change our minds. If a wave of research points one direction, we might adopt a particular strategy.

However, if better research over longer periods of time discounts those findings, then we have to be willing to try something else.

The best-known example of this problem: “learning styles.” Early research suggested that they might exist, but the vast weight of evidence shows clearly that they don’t.

In brief: we should adopt evidence-based theories only if we’re willing to let go of them as further evidence dictates.

Final Thoughts

But what about that stress-reduction technique? Do we have to give it up, now that it didn’t replicate?

That’s a surprisingly complicated question.

True enough: this attempt at replication failed.

However, in the original study, researchers Ramirez and Beilock tried their technique twice — just to be sure they had it right.

In fact, they tried it twice in the psychology lab and twice more in a local high school.

And, a similar research paradigm arrived at similar results.

We can say that the study has an uneven replication record. That’s not the same thing as “didn’t replicate.”

For these reasons, I think we should put the “writing about stress” strategy in the “we just don’t know” category. It might work. It might not.

It might depend on circumstances that our research paradigms haven’t yet revealed.

When psychology research offers you contradictory advice, think about your own classroom circumstances and make the best decision you can.

That advice is complicated, but it’s certainly not a crisis.

 

Sad News
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September-17-2018

Sad News

Read More

 

Like so many who study psychology, we at LatB are terribly sad to learn that Walter Mischel has died.

The New York Times obituary describes his importance — both in revolutionizing the field of psychology, and in popular understanding of self-control.

Personality in Context

For psychologists, Mischel emphasized the importance of context.

Personality theory suggests that “I’m this kind of person, not that kind of person.” Mischel’s research emphasizes that “I’m this kind of person in these circumstances, and that kind of person in other circumstances.” Context always matters.

This insight can’t be over-emphasized among teachers who want to teach with research in mind.

We shouldn’t just hear about a particular psychology study and adopt its methodology. We should, instead, check to see if the method that worked in that context might also work in this context. Which is to say: our classroom.

After all: most psychology research happens with college students.  If you don’t teach college students, you need to adapt that research to your context.

Marshmallows in Context

In popular culture, Mischel is best known for the “marshmallow test” (which, by the way, included other treats beyond marshmallows”).

You’ve seen videos of adorable 5-year-olds desperately trying to resist yummy goodness. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L-n8Z7G0ic

The often-oversimplified test includes many nuances. For instance, the 5-year-olds respond differently based on how much they trust you.

But the headline remains important: self-control matters.

Those of us who got to see Walter Mischel speak at the November 2015 conference will not soon forget his clarity, thoughtfulness, and warmth.

Have We Finally Arrived at 2nd Grade?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September-15-2018

Have We Finally Arrived at 2nd Grade?

Read More

When I first met him, Kurt Fischer used to say “when it comes to the brain, we’re all still in kindergarten.”

(Who’s Kurt Fischer? Well, if you want to connect psychology, neuroscience, and education, you’re following Kurt’s work.

He started the first journal in the field, and the first graduate program. He founded the International Mind Brain Education Society.

He even helped Kelly Williams organize the very first Learning and the Brain conference.)

new brain cell

Dr. Fischer meant that even though we’ve been studying the brain for over 100 years, we still haven’t figured out very much about this infinitely complex part of our daily lives.

Years later, by the time I finished graduate school, he had started to admit we might be in Brain 1st Grade.

Exciting brain scanning techniques — especially fMRI — have shown us extraordinary and unexpected truths about our brains’ development and function.

Brain 2nd Grade?

Two recent discoveries make me wonder: are we in second grade yet?

First, a just-published study identifies a new brain cell — one that might, in fact, be unique to humans.

We don’t know much about “rosehip neurons”; for instance, we don’t know exactly what they do. They’re a kind of inhibitory neuron, but what they inhibit and why, we don’t yet know.

More than 100 years after Santiago Ramon y Cajal produced his amazing drawings of various brain cell types, we still haven’t identified them all.

Second, another just-published study suggests a new way for the brain to communicate with the body’s immune system.

The details here are quite complex (unless you’re already up to speed on aseptic meningitis and neutrophils).

But the surprise remains. Even now, we’re still figuring out basics: like, how does the brain talk with the immune system?

New Brain Cell: Classroom Implications

Of course, this news doesn’t yet tell us how to teach differently.

This new brain cell does, however, provide us an important reminder. Practically everything we learn about the brain in the 20-teens and 2020s will be tentative, initial, and incomplete. We should be excited with each development…and always ready to have old beliefs overturned by new findings.

Update on “Collaborative Learning”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September-12-2018

Update on “Collaborative Learning”

Read More

Last week, I wrote about a potential strategy for making group-work more effective. A Boston-based research team has found reason to think that “intermittent” collaboration might yield better results than constant (or absent) collaboration.collaborative learning

Although I’m excited to see these results, my article concluded with two concerns:

First: the research was done with college students. It might not apply to younger learners.

Second: the participants weren’t exactly collaborating. They were (or were not) looking at each others’ answers after they solved problems.

They did not do what typically happens in schools, where students work on problems and projects together all at the same time.

So, again: this research might not (or, might) apply in our classrooms.

(I should be clear: the researchers don’t claim to be studying collaboration. Their research field is “collective intelligence.” The most obvious place to apply their research is in what teachers call “collaboration.”)

Thoughtful Update for Concern #1…

When I have questions about a study, I try to ask the researchers for their thoughts. In this case, I reached out to Dr. Jesse Shore with my two concerns.

His answers struck me as particularly helpful, and so I’m sharing them with you. (I’m rewording passages from his email, but with his permission drawing substantially on them.)

First, Dr. Shore explains why intermittent “collaboration” helps:

The results depend on (1) people trying more diverse solutions when they are not seeing others’ solutions [ACW: that’s how working alone helps]

and (2) learning from the solutions of others when they do see them [ACW: that’s how “collaborating” helps].

Intermittent collaboration makes time for both benefits.

For this reason, Dr. Shore suspects that this strategy would work well with younger students. There’s no obvious reason why 3rd graders (for example) wouldn’t “try more diverse solutions when not seeing others’ solutions,” nor why they wouldn’t “learn from others’ solutions when they see them.”

Such hypotheses need testing, but that’s a plausible set of presumptions with which to start.

…and Concern #2

Dr. Shore shares my concern about applying “collective intelligence” research directly to “collaboration.” After all, collaboration includes at least two other key variables.

The “free rider” problem. When groups work together, some people can just sit back and let others do all the work.

Interpersonal relationships. In groups, some people like each other and work well together; others just don’t. Or, a student might adopt another student’s strategy not because it works well, but because that student is popular.

Despite these other variables, Dr. Shore writes, “my guess is that intermittent interaction would still be best.”

After all–as I think about his summary–it seems clear that intermittent collaboration would interrupt the “free-rider” problem. I can’t let you do all the work if I have to work by myself at times.

The Big Picture

First: Dr. Shore offers us good reasons to think that “intermittent” interaction would indeed benefit typical kinds of school collaboration.

Its benefits, most likely, help students of all ages. And it might help with (and certainly wouldn’t exacerbate) the additional complexities of full-on collaboration.

Second: this strikes me as an excellent example of the philosophy that teachers shouldn’t just “do this thing,” but instead should “think this way.”

In this case: when we see research about “collaboration,” we should not simply enact its guidance. Instead, we should contemplate the specific ways it does, and does not, fit exactly with what we do.

The Unexpected Dangers of Reading (and Writing) Blogs
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September-08-2018

The Unexpected Dangers of Reading (and Writing) Blogs

Read More

A recent post on a well-known education blog beats up on that old nemesis: “rote memorization.”

To highlight this point, the author links to a study on the benefits of “the generation effect.”

When students try to guess at answers to questions, they’re likelier to remember the correct answer even if their initial guess was wrong.

Here’s the study.

Presumably, the study compares “the generation effect” to “rote memorization.” Presumably it concludes the former helps more than the latter.

Nope. Not a bit of it.

This study, instead, looks at different kinds of mistakes that students might make when they guess. It concludes that nearby guesses help, but far away guesses don’t.

Here’s the researchers’ summary: “errors benefit memory to the extent that they overlap semantically with targets.”

The study just isn’t about rote memorization. (Just to be sure, I checked with the study’s lead author. She confirms my understanding of the research.)

Lesson Learned

If you can’t even trust [name-of-well-known-education-blog], what can you do? How can you trust any news from the interwebs.

Here’s my advice:

First: anyone who quotes research should link to it. If you can’t find the link quite easily, don’t make any changes to your teaching.

Second: click the link. (Don’t yet make any changes to your teaching.)

Third: feel a little nervous. You’ve got several daunting pages of big words and bizarro graphs.

Fourth: Think about giving in and just making the changes that the article suggests. Don’t give in to that impulse. No changes yet.

Fifth: read the first paragraph of the research. It’s called the “abstract,” and it should summarize what the researchers did and what they concluded.

If the abstract DOESN’T include the point you read on the website, then you’re done. The research doesn’t focus on the argument that the blogger is making, and so shouldn’t have been cited in the first place.

Lesson learned. Nothing to see here. Move on.

In this case: when you read the abstract about the generation effect, you’d see that it never mentions rote memorization.

Of course, if the abstract DOES include that point — now you can start taking the blog seriously. You might not decide to change your teaching, but at least you’ve got an argument worth considering.

Flipping the Script

I had a similar experience (in reverse) about a month ago. This blog’s software notified me that another blog had linked to my article on omega-3 fish oil.

That post isn’t obviously the sexiest one on the website, so I was a bit surprised to see it getting internet love.

A brief investigation showed that the link came from a website in a foreign language — one that encouraged pregnant women to buy omega-3 fish oil supplements.

Hmmm.

My article summarized research showing that such supplements don’t help with working memory or in-school behavior. Not so much about benefits for pregnant women.

It seems clear that this other blog assumed its readers a) wouldn’t click on the link, and b) if they did, they wouldn’t be able to read English well.

The link was there to fool their readers, not help them.

The Headline

When we see a blog link to research, we can feel reassured. At the other end of the link, doubtless, lies research supporting the author’s point.

Don’t believe it. Don’t trust. Verify.

Click the link. Read the abstract…

What’s the Best Timing for Collaborative Learning?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September-05-2018

What’s the Best Timing for Collaborative Learning?

Read More

Learning can be a lonely business.

Does collaborative learning help students? If yes, what guidelines should teachers follow?

Collaborative Learning: Benefits and Detriments

collaborative learning

Overall, we’ve got lots of research suggesting that collaboration helps students learn. And, happily, it doesn’t cost lots of extra dollars.

More specifically: the average score for students who learn in groups exceeds that of those who learn individually.

Unsurprisingly, students who struggle to learn benefit from practice with peers who understand better than they do.

At the same time, the highest scores tend to be lower in groups than among individual learners.

Working in groups, it seems, reduces the mental exploration necessary to find the best answers.

Given this background, we arrive at a really interesting question:

Can we get the benefits of group learning (higher average) AND the benefits of individual learning (highest scores).

It’s All in the Timing

Researchers at several Boston universities wondered if timing mattered. What would happen if students worked in groups at times and alone at other times?

The research team invited college students to work on a spatial puzzle. (It’s called the “Euclidean travelling salesperson problem.” I myself doubt that many of Euclid’s peers were travelling salespeople.)

Some of the students could always see their peers’ solutions. Some could never see those solutions. And some got to see every third solution.

Which groups progressed faster?

As they had hoped, the team found that the third group yielded both the highest average and the highest score.

In brief: teamwork helps most when team members also spend time working by themselves.

Classroom Implications for Collaborative Learning

This study offers a helpful suggestion. Teachers who use group work might ensure that group members work together at some times and solo at others.

At the same time, we should note some important caveats before we follow this guidance too strictly.

First: this study worked with college students. Its findings might apply to younger students. But, then again, they might not.

Second: this research is most easily described as “collaboration,” but that’s not exactly what the research team was studying. Notice: the participants never worked together on the travelling salesperson problem. Instead, they solved the problem on their own and then could (or could not) look at other students’ solutions.

That’s not typically how collaborative learning happens in schools.

More often, “collaborative learning” means that students work together on the project or problem. This study didn’t explore that approach.

(To be precise: the researchers focus on “collective intelligence,” not “collaborative learning.”)

Final Words

I myself think this research offers a helpful suggestion: occasional teamwork might lead to better results than constant (or absent) teamwork.

However, we should keep a sharp eye out for the actual results in our own classrooms. Unless you teach college students by having them look at each others’ correct answers, this study doesn’t explore your methodology precisely.

User mileage will vary.

The Surprising (Potential) Benefits of Stress
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September-02-2018

The Surprising (Potential) Benefits of Stress

Read More

How realistically do you process bad news?

stress helpsIf you’re like most people, the answer is: “not very.”

We’ve got lots of research showing that people change their beliefs when they hear good news. However, they don’t change their views much when they hear bad news.

For example: I might ask you, “what are the odds that — in your lifetime — your house will be burgled?”

You answer “40%.”

Later on, I inform you that the real number is 30%. Given your initial estimate, I just gave you good news! You’re safer than you thought.

When I ask you the same question later, you’re likely to update your answer. You might guess 32%. That number is still high, but much more accurate than it was.

However, if you initially guessed “20%,” then the real number “30%” is bad news. You’re in more danger than you thought!

When I ask you the same question later, you probably won’t update your answer much. You’re likely to say “21%.”

You just didn’t process the bad news.

Surprise! Stress Helps

Recently, researchers wondered if stress helps us process bad news more honestly.

To find out, they invited people to their lab and stressed out half of them.

(The stressed-out half heard they would have to give an impromptu speech in front of judges. And, they were given challenging math problems to solve.)

The researchers then asked them several questions like the one above: “how likely is it that your house will be burgled?”

How honestly did these participants process the correct information they got?

As before, the un-stressed participants learned from the good news, but not from the bad.

However, the research team found that stress helps. That is: the participants who worried about their upcoming public speaking gig processed the bad news as well as the good.

Next Steps

The research team double checked their results with fire fighters in Colorado. They got the same results. That’s helpful news.

However, all of this research focuses on adults. The average age in the first study was about 25 years. In the second study, 43 years.

We know that adolescents and children process emotions quite differently. So: we should cross our fingers and hope that the researchers try out their idea with school-aged children.

The more we understand the benefits as well as the detriments of stress, the better we can help our students navigate the appropriate challenges that school provides.

——————————————————————————————

For further thoughts on stress in schools, check out this earlier blog article by Rose Hendricks.

And, for fun, here’s a video of the lead researcher talking about some of his earlier work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1-1rbBarCk

Improve Your Syllabus & Lesson Plan With “Prior Knowledge”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
August-30-2018

Improve Your Syllabus & Lesson Plan With “Prior Knowledge”

Read More

When I talk with my English students about The Glass Menagerie, we always identify the protagonist and the antagonist. This discussion helps them understand useful literary terms. It also clarifies their understanding of the play.

prior knowledge

Of course, as they consider this question, I want them to recall a similar conversation we had about Macbeth. In that play as well, we can struggle to determine who the antagonist might be.

In psychology terminology, I want my students to “activate prior knowledge.” Their discussion of The Glass Menagerie will improve if they think about their prior knowledge of Macbeth.

Here’s the simplest teaching strategy in the world. If I want them to think about Macbeth‘s protagonist before they discuss TGM, I can start our class discussion with Shakespeare.

Rather than hope my students draw on their prior Macbeth knowledge, I can ensure that they do so.

This remarkably simple strategy has gotten recent research support. In this study, Dutch psychologists simply told students to recall prior learning before they undertook new learning. Those simple instructions boosted students’ scores.

Prior Knowledge: From Lesson Plan to Syllabus

This research advice might seem quite simple — even too simple. At the same time, I think it helps us understand less intuitive teaching advice.

You have probably heard about “the spacing effect.” When students spread practice out over time, they learn more than if they do all their practice at once.

To illustrate this idea, let’s look at a year-long plan in a blog by Mr. Benney:

Benney Syllabus 1

As you can see, Mr. Benney teaches his first science topic in September. He then includes topic-1 problems in his students’ October homework (“lag homework”). He reintroduces the subject in December. And returns to it one final time in April.

Clearly, he has spaced out his students’ interactions with this topic.

But, notice what happens when he does this with all eight topics:

Benney Syllabus 2

For many teachers, May looks quite scary indeed. Students are learning topic 8. They’re doing lag homework on topic 7. They’re being reintroduced to topics five and six. And they’re being re-re-introduced to topics 2 and 3.

Six topics all at the same time?

And yet, spacing requires interleaving. If Mr. Benney spreads out topic 1, then it will automatically interleave with the topics he’s teaching in October, December, and April. You can’t do one without the other.

Believe it or not, we have research that “interleaving,” like “spacing,” improves student learning.

Why would this be? After all, May’s syllabus looks really complicated.

Perhaps recent research on “prior knowledge” explains this result. If students are thinking about several topics at the same time, then their prior knowledge from previous months remains active.

Macbeth isn’t something we talked about 3 months ago. We have talked about it several times, including just last week.

Here’s the equation. Spacing automatically leads to interleaving. And, interleaving in turn keeps prior knowledge active. These three teaching strategies combine in multiple ways to help our students learn.

Older posts
Newer posts