Skip to main content
The Deep History of Ourselves: The Four-Billion-Year Story of How We Got Conscious Brains by Joseph LeDoux
Rebecca Gotlieb
Rebecca Gotlieb

New York University Professor and National Academy of Sciences member Joseph LeDoux recently published The Deep History of Ourselves: The Four-Billion-Year Story of How We Got Conscious Brains. He argues that understanding the evolutionary history of life on earth, which began 3.8 billion years ago, can help us understand ourselves, including our emotions and conscious experience. LeDoux reviews the organization and interrelation of species and discusses major evolutionary breakthroughs along the way to human consciousness. All life forms share certain basic survival behaviors—including managing resources, warding off harm, and reproducing–that were passed on from the last universal common ancestor. Although our mental life and its connection to behavior may be evolutionary byproducts of other selection pressures, our cognitive abilities have emerged as our unique advantage. LeDoux argues that our ability to engage in conscious thought can make us selfish and greedy, but it is also our best hope for combating looming challenges in our world to support our continued survival as a species.

The Deep History of Ourselves offers an overview of evolutionary history that is at once thorough and approachable. It wades into our ongoing quest to understand human consciousness by advancing sophisticated ideas about what consciousness is, how we got it, and why it matters. This book will be of interest to a general audience seeking to understand how, evolutionarily, humans came to be creatures who can think and feel emotions, including about the self.

LeDoux reviews the science showing that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago and that the first life form emerged 3.8 billion years ago when inorganic elements exposed to tremendous heat became biological compounds. Bacteria, which emerged 3.5 billion years ago, are the evolutionarily oldest life forms that still exist today. Bacteria have developed the ability to survive and proliferate in a great diversity of contexts. Unlike bacteria, eukaryotes can reproduce sexually, which was a major innovation in that it allowed for greater genetic diversity.

LeDoux then discusses bilateral symmetry which about 99% of animals have at some point in their development. Bilaterality contributed to greater mobility and more complex predator-prey relations. Bilateral animals typically have neurons that facilitate communication across long distances in the body and integrate sensory-motor information. Neurons support more sophisticated and flexible learning.

Spines were another major evolutionary change.  Vertebrates, which have spines, are a diverse group who trace their origins to an aquatic animal. Some major evolutionary developments among groups of vertebrates including the ability to breath oxygen from air rather than water, the ability to reproduce through intercourse, the ability to gestate young in an internal placenta, the four-chambered heart, and improved color vision and smell. Charles Darwin helped us come to understand that humans are related to and exist along a continuum with other animals.

About ten thousand years ago Homo sapiens began to dominate. LeDoux describes the components of our central nervous system, including that the hindbrain may support evolutionarily old reflexive behavior while the forebrain is responsible for evolutionarily newer cognition, learning, and memory. Cognition, according to LeDoux, is a biological process made possible by the nervous system. Our ability to hold information in mind, recognize patterns, and deliberate about and select among possibilities are among our advantageous cognitive skills. LeDoux draws on the work of other prominent scholars to show that we have become so smart not only because of these cognitive skills, but also because of cultural tools and knowledge, especially language, which have allowed us to efficiently amass and share knowledge across generations. These cultural forces even shape our conscious awareness of the self.

Departing from other prominent consciousness scholars, LeDoux argues that our subjective feeling experience is equivalent to our emotions. He argues that we cannot have unconscious emotions, but that nonconscious factors do contribute to the experience of emotion. LeDoux argues that much of the time we are not consciously aware of what we are doing, but that being able to take conscious control of our actions, and use that to transcend the present moment and build an understanding of the self, is a powerful ability. The front most part of the brain—the frontal pole—plays a key role in these sorts of highly integrative, complex experiences. Although other animals do have minds that can think, plan, and remember, and although all species share certain survival-related activities, it is difficult to know which animals have consciousness. Emotions, according to LeDoux, indicate that something significant is happening to you. We have a sense of self because it allows us to build personally relevant meaning through our emotional experiences of dynamic situations.

The Deep History of Ourselves is an important book because understanding human consciousness is critical given that our future as a species depends on our ability to use our conscious minds to address imminent global and environmental threats.

 

LeDoux, J. (2019). The Deep History of Ourselves: The Four-Billion-Year Story of How We Got Conscious Brains. New York, NY: Viking

“Educating Anxious Brains”: Digging Deeper
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

I wrote two weeks ago about our first 2020 education conference: Educating Anxious Brains, in San Francisco — February 14-16.

Jessica Minahan

As you saw in that post, educators have lots to concern us: trauma & stress, and their effects on minds and brains. (Dan Siegel will have lots to say on these topics.)

Happily, the conference will get beyond the problems to practical, research-based solutions.

Below, I’ve described just a few of the speakers who will offer wisdom, practical guidance, and humor.

Creating Calm and Mindful Schools

Janine Halloran

Jessica Minahan has guidance (and practical strategies) for reducing anxiety and improving behavior in the classroom. (Her first book, The Behavior Code, helps us decipher patterns in students’ actions, and so choose the optimal approach for helping redirect behavior.)

To think about behavior from the students‘ point of view, you can hear Janine Halloran. Her perspectives, and age-appropriate workbooks, help students develop the coping skills and social skills essential for school.

Christopher Willard

Christopher Willard has been a frequent presenter at our conferences. If you worry about anxiety in schools, you’ll love hearing his approach to mindfulness as a way to rewire stressed brains.

 

Sara King

Speaking of rewiring stressed brains: you can also meet Sará King — a yoga instructor with a degree in neuroscience from UCLA.

Connecting with Students (Especially Teenagers!)

Christine Carter

Have you got a stressed-out teen in your classroom? In your house? Christine Carter — author of The New Adolescence — will offer perspectives on structure, autonomy, distractions, and (my favorite) “strategic slacking.”

Mary Helen Immordino-Yang

Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, one of the founding voices of the Mind/Brain/Education perspective, will talk about “embodied brains”: in particular, the effect of social environment on neural and cognitive development. (You can read my recent interview with her here.)

Clayton Cook

You’ve heard a lot about “positive greetings at the door,” and the effects they can have on shaping classroom culture. If you’d like to meet a key researcher in this field, come hear Clayton Cook talk about creating positive relationships.

If I know Lori Desaultels, she’ll be talking from her heart about combining regulation and connection to improve student well-being. (Check here to see what I mean about “talking from the heart…”)

Lori Desaultels

 

 

I wish I could introduce you to all the speakers we’ve got coming. Happily, you can do that yourself. Register ASAP. (No, seriously, it’s going to sell out…)


Interested in our May 2020 education conference, Schooling the Self? I’ll be introducing that conference soon…

Battles Worth Fighting: “What the Academy Taught Us”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Eric Kalenze’s What the Academy Taught Us begins with a fistfight.

More specifically, it begins with a fight among several students — some of whom belonged to Kalenze’s academic program.

As it turns out — I won’t give away the surprise here — this fight was (sort of) a good thing. And in this way, it sets the tone for Kalenze’s book. He believes, quite palpably, that the right kind of education is worth fighting for.

Even better, he has thoughtful suggestions for the best way to take on those battles.

The Backstory

Kalenze’s story begins with his principal, Dr. Bob: the hero of this tale. After a deep data dive, Dr. Bob concluded that his school’s graduation woes could be tracked back to the sophomore year.

Students who had gotten behind in credits by the end of that year lacked the time (and academic gusto) to catch up.

For that reason, Dr. Bob asked a group of teachers (including Kalenze) to form a school-within-a-school: the “Sophomore Academy.” The Academy would concentrate on struggling students, and get them on a path to graduation.

Crucially, it would accomplish this task within two key boundaries:

First, it didn’t have an additional budget. It needed to function with the same number of dollars that the school currently had.

Second, it couldn’t lower the standards for the students in the academy. Those students had to meet the same requirements that the school’s other students did.

In other words: teachers in the Sophomore Academy faced steep challenges as they set about designing this new academic program.

The Process

Having identified the key problem and established these parameters, Dr. Bob then gave great leeway — and even greater support — to his hand-picked crew of five teachers.

Working together over hours and weeks and years, this team built a rigorous and supportive program to help their students become both “stable and able.”

That is: they developed the habits of work and thought required for academic success (“stable”). And, with those habits better settled, they made real progress in their own academic accomplishments (“able”).

Along the way, Kalenze and colleagues faced a great many challenges: resistance from students, from non-Academy colleagues, from each other — and ultimately from their school district.

And while that resistance didn’t lead to fistfights, it did require thoughtful strategizing for Kalenze, his colleagues, and Dr. Bob.

Negotiating Change

In writing What the Academy Taught Us, Kalenze doesn’t try to persuade us to create Sophomore Academies in our own schools.

In fact, he’s quite confident that the model he helped devise wouldn’t be especially useful elsewhere.

Why? Because such changes should respond to specific, local needs. They should NOT follow an abstract, Platonically-Ideal Model For All Schools.

Instead — crucially — Kalenze has advice on managing the complex process of creating change in school systems: systems not famously open to change.

In offering his advice, Kalenze states quite frankly that he has no revolutionary proposals or cute acronyms. Instead, he has practical examples to show how and why he advises as he does.

For instance: when he encourages schools to rethink professional development systems, he offers his own school’s efforts as both good and bad examples. (The bad examples come especially when the local district takes over to insist that all schools do the same thing.)

Why This Book on This Blog?

You have probably noticed by now that What the Academy Taught Us doesn’t have much to say about brain research.

So: why am I reviewing it, and encouraging you to read it?

Here’s why: my goal when I started attending Learning and the Brain conferences was to improve my own teaching. I believed (and believe) that if I learn more about brains and minds, I’ll get better at helping other people learn almost anything else.

Perhaps that’s your goal as well: bettering yourself as a teacher.

At the same time, you might have a grander goal: improving school-wide practice. You want your own teaching to be better, sure. But, you want your colleagues‘ teaching and your administrators’ guidance and your students’ self-knowledge to improve as well.

In that case, you need not only to learn more about psychology and neuroscience, but also to learn how to create change in your teaching world.

I blog from experience when I say: that’s really hard to accomplish.

I’m recommending Kalenze’s book not because of its brain research (it doesn’t include any) or because I think you too should start a Sophomore Academy (and neither does Kalenze).

Instead, I think he has sensible, practical advice about creating school climates where meaningful change just might happen.

And that is, indeed, a battle worth fighting.

How to Find Happiness
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

At this time of year, we can easily get distracted by things.

If I have the right stuff — not the John Glenn kind of “right stuff,” but the right objects — then I’ll feel better about my life and world.

Of course, that just ain’t so. (Perhaps you didn’t need psychology research to confirm that belief.)

So: what does lead to happiness?

Martin Seligman has devoted decades of research to answering that question. And, in this substantive and thoughtful video, he walks you through his answers.

This information is about the best present I can think of for anyone.

A Holiday Present for the Teacher/Skeptic (in Beta)
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Teachers who rely on research to inform our teaching–presumably, that’s YOU–routinely hear that we must be skeptical.

“Don’t just believe everything you hear. When someone says that their suggestion is ‘brain based,’ you’ve got to kick the tires.”

Yes. Of course. But: how EXACTLY do we do that? What’s the most effective method for skepticism?

Pens and Laptops

Let’s take a specific example.

You’ve probably heard “research shows” that handwritten notes are more effective than notes taken on laptops. That is: students who take notes by hand remember more than those who take notes on their computers.

If you hunt down the source of that information, you’ll almost certainly end up at Mueller and Oppenheimer’s wittily titled study The Pen is Mightier than the Laptop. It made a big splash when it came out in 2014, and its waves have been lapping over us ever since.

Once you find that source, your thought process might go like this:

Step 1: “Look! Research shows that handwritten notes are superior. I shall forbid laptops forthwith!”

Step 2: “Wait a minute…I’ve been told to be skeptical. Just because Mueller and Oppenheimer say so (and have research to support their claim), I shouldn’t necessarily believe them.”

Step 3: “Hmmm. How exactly can I be skeptical?”

So, here’s my holiday present for you: a website that makes effective skepticism noticeably easier…

Check the Scitation

The website scite.ai leads with this catchy slogan: “making science reliable.”

At least, it’s helping make science reliabler. Or, more reliable.

Here’s how. Surf over to the website, put in the name of the article, and press the magic button.

Scite will then tell you…

…how many later studies have confirmed its findings,

…how many simply mention its findings,

…and how many contradict its findings.

In this case, you’ll discover that 24 studies mention Mueller and Oppenheimer’s study, 1 contradicts it, and 0 confirm it. That’s right. Zero.

So, according to Scite, you’ve got as much research encouraging laptop notes as you do decrying them. But: one of those studies is remarkably famous. And, the other simply isn’t known.

Next Steps

What should you do with this initial information?

At this point, I think the obvious answer is that we don’t have an obvious answer.

Probably, you want to keep looking for further evidence on both sides of the case.

You might find this summary over at the Learning Scientists, where Dr. Megan Sumeracki walks through the nuances and complexities of the research.

You might also find my own article arguing that the Mueller and Oppenheimer research makes sense only if you believe that students can’t learn to do new things. (That’s a strange belief for a teacher to have.) If you believe students can learn new things, then their own data suggest that laptop notes ought to be better.

At a minimum, I hope, you’ll feel empowered in your skepticism. Now you–unlike most people who quote Mueller and Oppenheimer–have a broader picture of the research field. You can start using your judgment and experience to guide your thinking.

An Important Caveat

I don’t know how long scite.ai has been around, but it’s in beta. And, truth be told, it’s not wholly reliable.

For instance: in 2011, Ramirez and Beilock did a study showing that writing about stress before an exam can reduce that stress (for anxious students).

In 2018, Camerer et al tried and failed to replicate those results (and several other studies as well).

When I searched on Ramirez’s study in scite, it showed only one contradiction: a study about “aural acupuncture.” In other words: scite missed an important non-replication, and included an irrelevant finding.

So, you shouldn’t use this website as your only skepticism strategy.

But, as of today, you’ve got one more than you did before. Happy Holidays!


If you’re looking for other skepticism strategies for the holidays, check out this work by Blake Harvard.

Understanding (False) Learning Styles Beliefs
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

If you’ve been near the internet recently, you know that Learning Styles Theory just ain’t true.

For a refresher, you could read the definitive research finding on the subject here.

Or, you could read this blog’s take on the myth.

If you’ve got Dan Willingham’s Why Don’t Student’s Like School? handy, you could reread chapter 7. Or, you could read Willingham’s article on the subject in the New York Times.

In the world of cognitive science, “learning styles” is right up there with “flat earth.”

Deeper Understanding

If we’re going to persuade people to give up this false belief, we should probably have a good understanding of their actual beliefs about learning styles.

It turns out, we’ve surveyed people about the prevalence of that belief. But, we don’t know much more than “yes” or “no” about it.

What precisely do they believe when they say they “believe in learning styles”?

A research team from Michigan wanted to know. So, they surveyed several hundred adults in the US to find out. Their results are, predictably, depressing. And also unpredictable in many ways.

So, on the depressing end of the scale: 96% of non-teachers endorse learning styles theory.

We shouldn’t feel too boastful however, because 91% of teachers do too.

Let that sink in for a moment. Imagine that 91% of doctors believed that balancing the humors would  heal their patients, and so bled people when they contracted a disease.

Ugh.

Generally, respondents believed that…

…people are predisposed to a learning style at birth,

…we can discover a person’s learning style when they’re quite young,

…different learning styles result from brain differences, and

…students with different learning styles will thrive in different kinds of classrooms (and careers).

That’s a whole lotta false belief right there.

Deeper Still, Some Glimmers of Hope?

At the same time, these surveys revealed some limitations as well.

Respondents believed that…

…learning styles are NOT determined at birth. (“Predisposed,” yes. “Determined,” no.),

…our learning style CAN change,

…we might have DIFFERENT learning style in various disciplines,

…learning styles don’t result from our GENETIC make-up, and

…we might have MORE THAN ONE learning style.

This second set of beliefs allows a little room for hope. In the first place, they contradict the beliefs listed above, and so create useful cognitive dissonance.

In the second place, they suggest some flexibility we might try to extend.

If, for instance, you DON’T believe that a learning style is determined at birth, maybe you’re can open to the idea that we all learn in multiple perceptual ways.

So too if you already DO believe that we can have more than one learning style.

If we can highlight this cognitive dissonance, and work with this kind of flexibility, we might be more effective in persuading people to move away from learning styles theories to others that have real research support.

Other Findings

The Michigan researchers noticed several other patterns as well.

First: they found that some people are all in on learning styles. That is, they focus on the certainty of the first list above.

But, others have more flexible, uncertain beliefs about learning styles. That is, they think of a learning style as more changeable than as fixed. (You might think of this as the “growth mindset” vs. “fixed mindset” version of learning styles beliefs–although the researchers don’t use those phrases.)

Second: researchers found, the teachers likeliest to endorse learning styles are those working with younger students.

In my view, this research suggests we really need to focus on information efforts on teachers in those years. After all, young students might be particularly susceptible to learning-styles messages from their teachers.

Third: strangely, the two most prevalent learning styles are thought to be: visual and kinesthetic.

Teachers, for instance, think that more than 90% of their students fit in those categories (56% visual; 36% kinesthetic).

Where do those beliefs come from? Perhaps we hear the message “there should be less teacher talk,” and infer that students aren’t “auditory learners.” And, when we hear the message “students learn by doing,” we infer that students are “kinesthetic learners.” (To be clear, I’m simply hypothesizing.)

The Big Picture

For many readers, these surveys may lead to a sense of despair. So many false beliefs; so little time to correct them.

At the same time, I do think this kind of research opens real possibilities. Once we understand the details of these scientific misconceptions, we can tailor more effective efforts explain how learning really works.

Introducing Our 2020 Education Conferences
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

The first of our 2020 education conferences focuses on Educating Anxious Brains.

We’ll gather in San Francisco, February 14-16, for a weekend of powerful, practical, and informative workshops.

Dr. Madeline Levine

Our goal: we want to help teachers, administrators, and parents create calm, connected, mindful, and trauma-informed schools.

We’ve got quite the lineup of speakers…

Anxious Brains: Helping Kids Thrive in a Stressful World

We live in a time of daunting social and cultural stress–and our kids are right here with us. How can parents and teachers help?

Dr. Dan Siegel

Dr. Madeline Levine will have practical suggestions on guiding children to succeed in an unpredictable world. And, she can do so while keeping a sense of humor.

To learn more about the simple “power of showing up,” come hear Dr. Dan Siegel. He’ll remind us that parental presence can change so much–including how our children’s brains get wired.

Dr. Suniya Luthar

Dr. Suniya Luthar looks at the particular challenges of risk-taking in high-pressure schools. How can we help students be resilient when their environment includes so many challenges and setbacks? Her first answer to those questions: authentic connections.

Traumatized Brains: Creating Trauma Sensitive Schools

Dr. Nadine Burke Harris

When life experience takes students past anxiety into trauma, what can parents and schools do to help?

Dr. Nadine Burke Harris–the surgeon general of California–will talk about her research into the toxic effect of stress: the damage it does to the very cells of our brains. And, she’ll offer guidance on how we can best help. (Click here for our review of her amazing book The Deepest Well: Healing the Long-Term Effects of Childhood Adversities.)

Dr. Bruce Perry

Founder of and Senior Fellow at the ChildTrauma Academy, Dr. Bruce Perry will bring his decades of experience to help us understand the effect of trauma on brains, and on neural development. He will help us see how deeper understanding can lead to deeper healing, as we educate, protect, nurture, and enrich the lives of these children.

 

I’ll be introducing more speakers for our 2020 Education Conferences in upcoming posts.

Unsurprisingly, given this list of speakers, our February conference is likely to sell out. If you’re interested, you should register as soon as possible!

Balancing Direct Instruction with Project-Based Pedagogies
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

A month ago, I wrote about a Tom Sherrington essay proposing a truce between partisans of direct instruction and those of project-based learning (and other “constructivist pedagogies”).

In brief, Sherrington argues that both pedagogical approaches have their appropriate time in the learning process.

EARLY in schema formation, direct instruction helps promote learning for novices.

LATER in schema formation, project-based pedagogies can apply, enrich, and connect concepts for experts.

Today’s Update

At the time I wrote about Sherrington’s essay, it was available in a book on Education Myths, edited by Craig Barton.

I do recommend that book–several of its essays offer important insights. (See this post on Clare Sealy’s distinction between autobiographical and semantic memory.)

If you’d like to read Sherrington’s essay right away, I have good news: he has published it on his website.

Happily, his contribution to the debate is now more broadly available.

A Final Note

Like other thinkers in this field, Sherrington proposes the novice/expert divide as the most important framework for understanding when to adapt pedagogical models.

In my own thinking, I’m increasingly interested in understanding and defining the transition points from one to the other.

That is: how can we tell when our novices have become experts?

What are the signs and symptoms of expertise? How can we describe those signs and symptoms so that 3rd grade teachers and 7th grade teachers can make sense of them?

Or, science teachers and history teachers?

Or, soccer coaches as well as dance instructors?

In other words: I agree with Sherrington’s framework, but I think it’s incomplete without clearer guidance about the novice/expert continuum.

Dangerous Fluency: Performance Isn’t Always Learning
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

How often do you have this experience?

Your students obviously understood yesterday’s topic. You know this because, say, their exit tickets revealed a high level of progress.

And yet, when you begin class today, they have seemingly forgotten everything you discussed, and everything they learned. Or, “learned.”

Teachers experience this frustration all the time: short-term performance doesn’t necessarily translate into long-term learning. (I’ve written before about Nick Soderstrom’s AWESOME review article considering this tension.)

A Telling Example

Last year, Glass and Kang published an important study about the effect of technology use during college lectures.

G&K let students use technology–laptops and cellphones–during 1/2 of the lectures in a psychology class, and forbade them during the other half.

In fact, they taught two identical sections of the same course, and enforced this ban in each class on alternating days. So: they could compare students to themselves in the ban- vs. no-ban classes.

The result headlines go like this:

This tech ban had NO EFFECT on immediate quizzes: students scored equally well on average in the ban- and the no-ban classes.

And yet, it had a SUBSTANTIAL effect on the term-end exam. Students averaged 7 points lower on material they had learned when tech was allowed than when it was forbidden.

And, crucially, students scored lower in no-ban classes even if they didn’t use technology themselves. Presumably, their classmates’ technology use distracted them.

This study suggests several conclusions. (I’ll mention a particularly counter-intuitive one at the end of this post.)

Most People Don’t Judge Their Own Learning Well

Because we’re teachers, we are–relatively speaking–experts on learning. Especially if you’re reading this blog (and attending Learning and the Brain conferences), you probably know a lot more about the complexities of learning than most people do.

And, you know more about learning than your students do.

That’s a (surprisingly) controversial statement. But, consider the students’ perspective in Glass and Kang’s psychology lecture.

They might reasonably say:

“Look: I scored equally well on the daily quizzes whether or not I was using technology. Clearly I understand material just fine when I’m texting my friends.

Have a little faith in me as a learner. I know when the professor is saying important things, and I focus then. And, I know when she’s gone off on a cute-but-unessential anecdote, and I use that time to check in with my people.”

Everything in that hypothetical statement is accurate, or at least plausible.

However, it lacks the long-term perspective. Their performance on short-term quizzes does not predict their long-term learning and understanding.

Because we have G&K’s research, and see the longer perspective, we know that their texting had a subtle, harmful effect on retention. However well they did right away, students just didn’t learn that information deeply.

For this reason–among many others–I think teachers should be confident in claiming our expertise. When our students say “I know I learn better this way,” we can use our best judgment in evaluating that claim.

At times–especially if they have a particular diagnosis–they might well be right.

At other times–especially if they want to watch YouTube while doing homework, or claim that their learning style requires that they do X instead of Y–you can offer strong guidance based on cognitive science research.

Counter-Intuitive Conclusion

I promised above I’d offer a surprising interpretation of Glass and Kang’s study. Here goes:

Because students did worse in the no-ban classes whether or not they used technology, the obvious conclusion is that we should utterly ban technology from our classrooms.

However, that conclusion misses an essential part of G&K’s methodology. They didn’t exactly ban technology use. In fact, they required technology use.

You read that right.

Those “immediate quizzes” you’ve been reading about? Students had to take them on some kind of electronic device: a laptop or a cell phone.

So, the study does NOT compare performance in a ban vs. a no-ban condition. It DOES compare performance in classes where technology was required at times (to take quizzes), and where it was used however students liked (as well as taking quizzes).

In other words: the problem wasn’t USE of technology. It was MISUSE of technology.

Here again, I think this insight brings us back to teacher judgment.

Should you ban technology from your classroom?

If the topic you’re covering doesn’t benefit from technology, then you have plenty of reasons to do so.

But, if you’ve got some great way to enhance instruction with technology–and you can monitor their technology use as G&K did–then you might get the same benefits that Glass and Kang’s students did when they took those quizzes on laptops.

Research guidance can shape our thinking. And, we should always blend it with our own experience and classroom skill.

A Hidden Strength of “Concreteness Fading”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

In my last post, I wrote about a teaching strategy called “concreteness fading.”

If we start with concrete examples, and gradually transition to abstract formulas, we help our students understand and transfer math knowledge.

I think this technique includes an under-appreciated strength: its name clearly describes what the method advocates.

Here’s my point:

The Problem with Catchy Brands

If I, as a researcher or teacher, come up with a cool new teaching idea, I want people to adopt it. Obviously.

And so I’m tempted to come up with an upbeat, catchy name for it. For the sake of example, let’s say I devise a method of “awesome teaching.”

This brand name has the advantage of zany enthusiasm.

But, it distracts from a conversation about the merits of the method. Now, anyone who articulates doubts about my method seems to argue against being awesome. Which is to say: they seem like a bad person.

This problem came home to me recently when I talked at a (great) school about working memory and its limitations. A teacher, reasonably enough, noted that my argument contradicted some segments of an instructional methodology championed in her district.

Here’s the catch: that method’s name included the word “authentic” in it.

As a result, I found myself–bizarrely–arguing against “authenticity.”

Of course, I’m NOT opposed to being authentic. I am, however, opposed to using teaching methods that overwhelm working memory capacity–even if those methods are branded “authentic.”

So, in that case, the word “authentic” simply made it harder to have a sensible, research-based conversation about the teaching methods involved. I felt I had to repeat, over and over, “I’m not against being authentic, I’m against this particular thing that calls itself ‘authentic.’ ”

To be clear: “authentic” isn’t the only problem phrase–not by a long shot.

For instance, there’s a splendid strategy for giving feedback: one that I regularly encourage.

Alas, it calls itself “wise feedback.” Now, anyone who doubts the method seem to oppose being wise while giving feedback. That’s an unhelpful burden for those of us who want to rely on research.

Back to “Concreteness Fading”

At this point you’ll understand why I like the phrase “concreteness fading.”

Unlike other branding phrases (“student-centered,” anyone?), it’s not trying to sway you with its upbeat perkiness. It’s not a brand.

Instead, the label “concreteness fading” describes–literally, if a bit awkwardly–the method itself.

Step 1: Start concrete.

Step 2: Shift from concrete to abstract. (And, because abstract things are less concrete than concrete things, let’s us the verb “fade” to describe that shift.)

Other methods include this strength.

“Retrieval practice” means “practice by retrieving, not by reviewing.” The name is a literal description.

Lots of people doubt the usefulness of “project-based learning,” especially for novice learners. But, the name itself has the benefit of direct clarity. Those who doubt PBL can argue against it without constantly saying “I’m not against X, I’m against this thing called ‘X’.”

 

Let me conclude with a plea to people who name teaching methods: the more direct and literal your brand, the more honestly teachers and researchers can discuss it.

And, if the method itself has merit, then that honesty will work in your favor.