Skip to main content

Monthly Archives: April 2019

Older posts
A Rose by Any Other Name Would Smell as Confusing
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-30-2019

A Rose by Any Other Name Would Smell as Confusing

Read More

We have to admit it: when it comes to naming things, the field of psychology has no skills.

In many professions, we can easily distinguish between key terms.

The difference between a kidney and a pancreas? Easy.

The difference between a 2×4 and a 1×6? Easy.

The difference between an altimeter and speed indicator? Easy.

But:

The difference between grit and resilience?

Between self-control and self-regulation?

Between an adolescent and a teen-ager? Um….

And, if we can’t define and distinguish among concepts easily, we’ll struggle to talk with each other sensibly about the work we’re doing.

I think of naming problems in several categories:

Sales-Pitch Names

Occasionally, psychologists come up with a name that seems to have been market tested for maximum sales.

Take, for instance, “wise feedback.”

Many researchers have explored a particular feedback structure that combines, first, an explicit statement of high standards, and second, an explicit statement of support.

For instance:

“I’ve made these suggestions on your essay because we have very high standards in the history department. And, I’m quite confident that – with the right kind of revision – this essay will meet those standards.”

(You can find research into this strategy here.)

I myself find the research quite persuasive. The strategy couldn’t be easier to implement. It couldn’t cost any less – it’s free! And, it’s particularly helpful for marginalized students.

But the phrase “wise feedback” rankles. Whenever I talk with teachers about this strategy, I feel like I’m participating in a late-night cable TV sales pitch.

Couldn’t we find a more neutral name? “Two-step feedback”? “Supportive standards feedback”?

Another example: “engagement.” Blake Harvard recently posted about this word, worrying that it’s too hard to define.

I agree. But, I also worry the name itself tries to prohibit debate. Who could be opposed to “engagement”?

In science world, however, we should always look for opposing viewpoints on any new suggestion. If a brand name – like “engagement” – feels too warm and fuzzy to oppose, the name itself inhibits scientific thinking.

By the way, almost everything that includes the word “brain” in it is a sales-pitch name: “Brain Gym.” “Brain Break.”

Of course, the right kind of exercise and activity do benefit learning. Short cognitive breaks do benefit learning. We don’t need to throw the word “brain” at those sentences to improve those strategies.

Poaching Names

If I’ve got a new idea, and no one pays attention to it, how might I get eyeballs on my website?

I know! I can use a pre-existing popular name, and staple it on to my concept – even if the two aren’t factually related to one another!

That way, readers will think that my new ideas has links to that other well-known idea. Voila – instant credibility.

This “poaching” happens most often with “Mindset.”

You’ve probably read about an “empathy” mindset. Or a “technology” mindset. Or a “creative” mindset. Maybe, an “international” mindset. Or a “your product name here” mindset.

To be clear, these ideas might in fact help students learn. Empathy and creativity and an international perspective can certainly improve schools.

But, Dweck’s word “mindset” has a very particular meaning. She has done quite specific research to support a handful of quite specific theories.

Calling my new thing “a Watson mindset” implies that my work links with Dweck’s. But, that implication needs careful, critical investigation. If you trust Dweck, you don’t have to believe everything called “mindset.”

(Of course, not everyone does trust Dweck. But: that’s a different post.)

Confusing Names

These names make sense to the people who coin and use them. But, they’re not obviously connected to the concepts under discussion – especially to visitors in the field.

Here’s a crazy example: entity theorists.

Believe it or not, one of the best-known concepts in educational psychology used to distinguish between entity theorists and (not joking here) incremental theorists.

But then, in the late 1990s, Carol Dweck started a rebranding project, and now calls those things a fixed mindset and a growth mindset.

I rather suspect her ideas wouldn’t have gotten such traction without the new names.

(Imagine teachers earnestly encouraging their students: “remember to adopt an incremental theory!” I don’t see it…)

A Really Good Name

In the bad old days (the 2000s), psychologists did a lot of research into “the testing effect.” It’s a terrible name. No one in schools wants anything to do with more testing.

Let’s rebrand. How about “retrieval practice”?

That name has many strengths:

First: far from being confusing, it tells you exactly what it means. Practice by retrieving, not by reviewing. Couldn’t be clearer.

Second: far from being a sales pitch, it remains comfortably neutral. It’s not “awesome practice” or “perfect practice.” You get to investigate research pro- and con-, and decide for yourself.

Third: rather than poaching (“students should develop a practice mindset!”), it stands on its own.

I don’t know who came up with this phrase. But, I tip my hat to a modest, clear, straightforward name.

We should all try to follow this clear and neutral example.

 

No, Brain Scans Can’t See You Think
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-27-2019

No, Brain Scans Can’t See You Think

Read More

Over at NPJ Science of Learning, Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa debunks the myth that “brain scans see thought.”

In brief, Tokuhama-Espinosa argues that

Each brain imaging machine can, at best, measure a single dimension (electrical, chemical, or structural) of one sub-skill set …

No imaging machine can measure thought, only a sub-element of a thought.

The whole article is worth a read. Tokuhama-Espinosa has long made wise contributions to the field of Mind, Brain, Education. Her writing always merits attention.

Does Low-Structure Free Time Improve Executive Function?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-25-2019

Does Low-Structure Free Time Improve Executive Function?

Read More

As teachers, we want our students to learn academic content: math and reading and music.

At the same time, we ALSO want them to learn how to manage the cognitive functions required to do so.

For instance, we want them to prioritize: “I’ll do this, then that, then t’other.”

We want them to navigate complexity: “If I can’t figure out this problem, I’ll ask my study-buddy. If I still need help, I’ll ask the teacher. If s/he’s not available, I’ll work on this other project until s/he is.”

We want them to inhibit unhelpful thought processes: “I know it’s snowing outside, but I’m going to focus on my book and NOT think about sledding this afternoon.”

In each of these examples, students learn how to manage their cognitive processes — no matter the academic content. Each of those processes is important, whether they’re managing phonics or subtraction or building a bibliography.

We call these mental skills “executive functions.” And, we really need our students to develop them, because executive functions make learning possible.

In fact, they make lots of adult life skills possible. If adults can’t inhibit unhelpful thought processes, we won’t accomplish much in our jobs.

Exercising Executive Function

Because of their importance, we really want to increase these capacities for our students.

Sure enough: if my students explicitly learn how to navigate classroom complexity, they’ll accomplish intricate school tasks more effectively later on.

But let’s ask a different question. Of course, I want my students to accomplish school tasks. I ALSO want them to accomplish tasks that they set for themselves as well.

In other words, we can consider “externally driven executive function” — where students improve at doing what adults tell them to do.

AND we can consider “self-directed executive function” — where they improve at accomplishing tasks they set for themselves.

How might we help young students get better at this second kind of executive function?

Training Self-Directed EF

Common sense suggests a ready hypothesis. If we let children practice managing their own activities, they’ll get better at doing so.

In other words: children whose free time is highly structured might develop “self-directed EF” more slowly than those whose free time is less structured.

Sure enough, researchers have found exactly that correlation.

6-7 year-olds who had less-structured free time (free play with other children, reading by themselves) showed greater self-directed EF than others who spent free-time in structured activities (karate lessons, art classes).

That is: they were better at accomplishing tasks they set for themselves, not tasks set by adults.

What Should Teachers and Parents Do?

As always, we should respond to this research modestly and incrementally. In other words: do not radically change your teaching or parenting style because of one study.

Note, for instance, that this study looked at 6-7 year-olds. (In fact, the results weren’t statistically significant for the oldest children in the study.)

And, that it established correlation, not causation.

And, it took place in a very particular socio-cultural setting (among relatively affluent families).

With these limitations in mind, the sensible implications go like this:

First: Students learn to regulate themselves differently for different tasks.

They get better at accomplishing adult-set tasks by practicing adult-set tasks.

They get better at accomplishing their own goals by practicing doing so.

Second: we want students to accomplish both kinds of goals.

Therefore, third: we should let them practice both ways. They’ll get better at following instructions when we teach them how to do so. They’ll get better at making their own way when we let them do so.

In Other Words…

I might have hypothesized this way: “children just aren’t all that good at self-regulation. The only way they’ll learn to accomplish their own goals is by practicing the tasks I set for them. Over time, they’ll internalize those mental self-control habits, and use them for their own ends.”

This research throws that hypothesis in doubt. Children learn lots of helpful executive function skills from us. And, they learn lots of executive function skills by practicing on their own.

Some of the time, we should let them.

Great Myths of Adolescence by  Jeremy D. Jewell, Michael I. Axelrod, Mitchell M. Prinstein, and Stephen Hupp
Rebecca Gotlieb
Rebecca Gotlieb
April-22-2019

Great Myths of Adolescence by  Jeremy D. Jewell, Michael I. Axelrod, Mitchell M. Prinstein, and Stephen Hupp

Read More

Do you think that teenagers today are lazier, riskier, and more self-absorbed than previous generations? Great Myths of Adolescence by Jeremy D. Jewell, Michael I. Axelrod, Mitchell J. Prinstein, and Stephen Hupp aims to correct that belief. Their book, which will be of great interest to people who study or work with adolescents, defines 50 common myths about adolescence, describes their prevalence, and presents the most recent scientific evidence to correct the myths.

The authors first dispel several myths related to the development of the body, brain, and mind during adolescence. For example, although our laws reflect a standard of adulthood beginning at age 18, many 18-year-olds have not yet assumed adult roles in society and their brains are still undergoing significant change.

One harmful myth about adolescents is that they are likely to engage in risky behaviors.  When adolescents believe that risk-taking is the norm, they often feel compelled to conform to that norm and thus take risks. But adolescent riskiness has been exaggerated. The authors present evidence that adults are more likely than teenagers to use marijuana and very few teens (around 5%) have used hard drugs. They show that life skills training programs can help reduce drug use, while DARE and related programs are ineffective. Notably, more than half of high school juniors and seniors have had sex, and about a quarter of high school freshmen have. Jewell and colleagues argue that comprehensive sex education (not just abstinence education or simulator baby doll exercises) is the most effective for reducing teen pregnancy and risky sex.

Adolescents’ social environment shapes their development. The authors examine several myths about adolescent socialization. For example, as is evident in many iconic teen movies, there is a pervasive myth that popular teenagers are cruel. While there is a kernel of truth to this, in general, popular teenagers are kind, and this quality serves them well throughout life. Teenagers are somewhat susceptible to peer pressure, as many believe, but the practice of conforming to a perceived norm can also be used to encourage teenagers to behave in productive and prosocial ways. For example, given that bullying peaks in middle school, prosocial norm setting could be beneficial.

While many believe teenagers’ “raging” hormones make them especially moody, the truth is hormones explain very little of the differences in mood among teenagers. Teenagers may experience their emotions intensely, but they are also skilled at regulating their emotions.  The belief that teenagers are moody is harmful; it makes parents and other adults less responsive to teenagers’ emotional needs. Both the quantity and quality of time that parents and adolescents spend together is important for adolescents’ emotional development. It is natural for teenagers to spend less time with parents than younger children do but detaching from parents is not necessary to transition successfully into adulthood.  Indeed, teenagers typically prefer to talk to their parents about school- and career-related challenges than to their friends. The teenager-parent relationship strengthens over the period of adolescence, especially when parents are emotionally responsive.

The authors tackle serious issues that adolescents face. For example, although suicide is more prevalent among adults in middle age than among adolescents, it is the second leading cause of death among teenagers. Asking teenagers if they have considered suicide reduces the likelihood of a teen taking his life. The authors report that overall violence in school is not increasing. A final danger for adolescents that the authors address is driving. Most traditional driver’s education courses are not effective. Graduated licensing systems are one measure states, communities, or parents can take to make teenage drivers safer.

The researchers address several lighter issues too. They present evidence suggesting that adolescents are not skilled at multi-tasking, the “freshman fifteen” pound weight gain is an exaggeration, and more teens read for leisure than most people believe.

Great Myths of Adolescence provides a helpful reminder of the many challenges that adolescents face and the exciting opportunities during this transitory period in life.  More compassion for adolescents and less self-righteous critiquing may benefit adolescents, adults, and society.

 Jewell, J. D., Axelrod, M. I., Prinstein, M. J., & Hupp, S. (2018). Great myths of adolescence. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

 

 

The Best-Known Neural Model of Learning Might be Substantially Wrong
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-22-2019

The Best-Known Neural Model of Learning Might be Substantially Wrong

Read More

You read that right.

All those diagrams of synapses and neurotransmitters might be factually correct, but misinterpreted to explain memory formation.

Basically, some researchers argue that we’re thinking about learning in the wrong place. In the old model, we focused on many, many interactions at the very tips of the dendrites.

In a new model, the researchers propose we focus on a few changes at the root of the dendrites — much closer to the place where they connect to the neuron’s main body.

This summary explains the headlines. (The original article itself can be found here.)

Both these links include helpful visuals to understand the difference between these two models.

The details are fantastically complicated. But the possibility of a new model is…technically speaking…awesome sauce.

What Should Teachers Do With This New Knowledge?

Believe it or not, not much.

In the first place, we should remember that for teachers: neuroscience is fascinating, but psychology is helpful.

That is, we don’t really need to know exactly what changes in the brain when students learn. (Although, of course, it’s SO INTERESTING.)

But, we DO really need to know what teaching practices create those neural changes — whatever they might be.

We need to manage working memory load.

We need to help students manage their alertness levels.

And, we need to use retrieval practice.

And so forth.

In every case, psychology research tells us what teaching strategies do and don’t help. If — as might be true in this case — our neuro-biological understanding changes, that change almost certainly doesn’t matter to our teaching.

We still need to manage working memory and alertness.

We still need to use retrieval practice.

And so forth.

We might think differently about the neurons and synapses and dentrites, but we will keep using the most effective teaching practices.

In the Second Place…

Let this news remind us of Kurt Fischer’s famous saying: “when it comes to the brain, we’re all still in first grade.” That is: modern neuroscience is still a young discipline, and we’ve got LOTS more to learn.

So, we can indeed be thrilled by all the neuroscience information we glean at Learning and the Brain conferences. But, we shouldn’t latch onto it too firmly. Instead, we should expect that, as the years go by, our neuro-biological models will need several fresh revisions.

I have, in fact, waited over a year since this article was first published to see what traction it has gotten in the field. So far, I have heard almost nothing about it.

Simply put: I don’t know whether the new model is more accurate than the old. Perhaps, ten years from now, the old model will be seen as an embarrassing relic. Perhaps, instead, the new proposal will have been forgotten.

In either case, we can think more effectively about brains (and about teaching ad learning) if we keep our mental models flexible enough to allow for fresh discoveries.

Building a Better Research Mousetrap: @justsaysinmice
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-19-2019

Building a Better Research Mousetrap: @justsaysinmice

Read More

If you keep up on brain news, you have frequently had this experience:

You read a newspaper headline or a blog link, and news of a potential discovery gives you an adrenaline rush:

Eating garlic may prevent age-related memory loss!

Radoiactive tracer shows effectiveness of cancer treatment!!

Ketamine may relieve depression!!!

Filled with enthusiasm, you read the accompanying article. Only to discover: the research was done on mice. The resulting adrenaline crash might cause you to desire chocolate-chip cookies (according to research done in mice).

Today’s News

Of course, mouse research is super important to establish basic biological processes. But, it doesn’t give teachers useful guidance. Ever.

(Now might be a good time to repeat one of my few absolute rules:

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER,

Change your teaching practice

Based on research

Into non-human animals.)

To highlight the foolishness of headline-hiding-the-mouse gambit, researcher James Heathers has created a vital new twitter account: @justsaysinmice.

That’s it. When you follow his account, you’ll get occasional updates with links to articles drawing breathless conclusions about research. Heathers wants you to know that the research shows results in mice.

As of this writing, Heathers’s account has 29 tweets, and north of 45,000 followers.

(By the way, we’ve written about Heathers’s skepticism before. He is developing a specialty in debunking inaccurate science communication.)

So, to tune up your skepticism skills, I encourage you to make @justsaysinmice a part of your twitter world.

Meet Blake Harvard, “Effortful Educator”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-17-2019

Meet Blake Harvard, “Effortful Educator”

Read More

Blake Harvard teaches psychology and coaches soccer at James Clemens High School. For three years now, he’s been actively at work trying out teaching strategies derived from cognitive psychology. And, he blogs about his work at The Effortful Educator.

I spoke with Blake about his work, hoping to learn more about the classroom strategies he finds most helpful and effective. (This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity.) 

Andrew Watson

Blake, thank you for taking the time to chat with me.

I always enjoy reading your blog posts, and learning about your strategies to connect psychology research with the teaching of psychology.

Can you give an example of research you read, and then you tried it out in your classroom? Maybe you tinkered with it along the way?

Blake Harvard

Well, first: retrieval practice and spacing. Research tells us that we forget things very rapidly. Forgetting information and then retrieving that information again strengthens ties in the brain. It promotes long term memory of that information.

So, I’m very conscious of different ways that my students elaborate on information and generate information.

What am I doing to have my kids review? Or, how am I spacing out the information that we were learning yesterday versus what we were learning a week ago versus what we were learning months ago. What are the ties among those things? How are they related?

In the past, when we completed a unit of study, it was in the past. We moved on. Now I’m very careful to revisit. I space out their practice and provide the opportunity for my students to think about material we’ve covered in the past.

And second, dual coding.

I think every teacher does some activity where they have students draw something. But dual coding is more than just about drawing things. It’s about organizing the information: how does it link up?

So, using those general concepts of retrieval practice, space practice, and dual coding, and applying them to my class specifically, I’m constantly trying to get my kids to think – to think more.

Andrew Watson:

Can you give an example of a strategy you use to be sure they do?

Blake Harvard

Sure. One example is, I use an unusual template with multiple-choice questions.

In a normal multiple-choice question, you have a kid read it. They answer “B.” You think, “okay B’s correct, let’s go to the next thing.”

Well, I’ve got this template where kids have to use – have to think about – A through E.

If B’s the right answer, they have to tell me why B’s the right answer. That is, they have to think about B.

But, then, they also have to take A, C, D, and E, and think about those too.

Why is C the wrong answer?

Or, how could you make D into the right answer?

Or, what question could you ask to make E the right answer?

Even, why is A tricky?

Andrew Watson

That seems both simple and extraordinarily powerful at the same time.

Blake Harvard

I don’t want to boil all of cognitive psychology down to that, but that’s really central, I think. There’s no elaborate trick. You don’t need any new technology. At the end of the day, you’re just getting those kids’ brains thinking more with the information.

Andrew Watson

Are there some teaching strategies that you read research about, and you tried them out, and you thought: I understand why this works in psychology lab, but it actually just doesn’t work in my classroom. I’m not gonna do it anymore.

Blake Harvard

Well, I just recently did something with flexible seating. I have an AP psychology student who wanted to try this out in my classroom, I said sure.

I have first block and second block class, and they’re both AP Psychology classes, and they’re both on the same pace, doing the same stuff.

We took the first block class, and we put them in a flexible seating classroom. This classroom had beanbags, it had a couch, it had comfortable chairs, it had only one or two tables with traditional chairs.

With my second block class, we kept them in more traditional seating: sitting at tables, facing the front.

And then I taught a unit, which is about seven or eight days, to both classes. I tried to keep everything the same as much as possible, and at the end we took our unit exam and then we compared the data.

So: how did the seating affect the grades, right?

The people in the flexible seating classroom did worse than the people in the traditional seating.

And then I took the grades and compared them to people who took the same course and the same test in years past. I got the same results. The flexible seating in that one classroom was worse than all of the other classes.

I know it’s not perfect methodology. Nothing is perfect “in the wild,” so to speak. But, I gave it a go. And I’ve decided that that’s not what I want to do.

Now, my student was focused more on the emotional part of it: “how did the kids feel about it?”

She had them fill out a survey: “Do you think you did better?” “Did you feel more comfortable in class?” – those sorts of things. And I haven’t seen those surveys yet; she’s compiling information herself. I am interested to see those too.

I heard some of the comments, and it’s interesting. Some of the comments on the first day of the class that was in the flexible seating classroom were like, “Oh my gosh! This is great!” And then by the end it was, “When is this over?”

Andrew Watson:

I’m wondering if your students take the strategies you use to their other classes? Do they study history with retrieval practice? Or science? Or do you find it stays pretty local to the work you do with them?

Blake Harvard

The short answer is: I don’t know. But I definitely impress upon them that this is how you should be studying.

Rereading your notes is not the most effective way to study. Going back over your notes and highlighting them is not effective. If you’re not thinking about the information, if you’re not actually trying to do something with it, you’re probably not being as effective as you should be.

In fact, it’s not just about simplifying; the right study strategies actually save you time. If you’ve tested yourself on this concept two and three times, and you get the same things right, you’re probably pretty good. You got it. Focus on the other things that you haven’t gotten right.

It doesn’t matter if it’s math, it doesn’t matter if it’s biology, it doesn’t matter what it is. The brain works the way the brain works. If you can’t use the information, if you can’t answer this question, you don’t know it. And you need to study it, because if you did know it, you would have answered the question. It’s as simple as that.

Andrew Watson

Yes. So, we talked about whether or not students use these strategies in other classes. Are there things you encourage them to do that have research support, but they’re particularly resistant to?

Blake Harvard

That’s an interesting question. Nothing off the top of my head is coming to me…

You know: those who don’t think they’re great artists – at first, don’t want to use dual coding. Because they think “my drawing’s bad.” And I’ll say: “you know, it’s not about how good your drawing is. It’s about what it represents to you, in your mind.”

Andrew Watson

The mental practice that goes into it.

Blake Harvard

Exactly. Once you explain that to them, they’re much more receptive to it.

Andrew Watson

One of the tricky parts of our field is that there are many teaching strategies that people say have “a whole lot of research support.” And part of our job is to be good at sifting the good stuff from the not good stuff.

Do you have any advice for teachers who are trying to figure out what really is valid and valuable, not just trending on Twitter?

Blake Harvard

It’s never easy, you know.

Often, I look for multiple cases of a particular teaching strategy. Did they test 20 kids in one classroom? Or was this tested across the country?

You also want to think about the people you have in your class. If researchers test a particular demographic, but you don’t teach that demographic, perhaps their conclusion doesn’t apply to your class. Something that might work in an elementary classroom: there’s a chance it could work in my AP Psychology classroom, but I’ve got to really look at it.

To be fair, this is something I’m figuring out myself.

Andrew Watson

I know that you are a coach as well as a teacher. I wonder if you use any of these strategies in your coaching world as well as your teaching world.

Blake Harvard

Yes, I do, definitely. For me, it has to do with how I structure practice.

I want to show my soccer players what a skill should look like, what the strategy does on the field, why it works.

We want to start small. I want each player individually working on it, and perfecting it or getting better at it. Then we go into a small sided game: maybe two-versus-two or three-versus-three. And then, let’s work it into a bigger scenario.

Eventually, obviously the goal is that they use it in a real-world game.

Just like in the classroom, I’m not a huge fan of inquiry-based learning. I think that there are much more effective ways of teaching than that. I want to explain each new concept to them very clearly, in a very organized way, so that they have a good understanding of what it is. Then we try to apply it to real life. But I don’t start off there.

Andrew Watson

So, you follow the coaching version of direct instruction.

Blake Harvard

Right, yes.

Andrew Watson

Are there questions I ought to have asked you which I haven’t asked you?

Blake Harvard

It’s an interesting journey to get to where I am right now. I graduated with my Master’s Degree in 2006 and up until about 2016 I was just doing just normal professional development: whatever the school had for me to do.

Sometimes I was really excited about it; sometimes I was sitting in there barely paying attention. But now that I’ve found these different types of professional development opportunities, I see they can really improve you, and improve your students and your classroom.

You don’t have to think “I’ll just do the PD that I’m supposed to do and then I go back to my classroom.” There are ways – simple ways, easy ways – to improve your classroom, to improve learning for your students.

Andrew Watson

It’s interesting you say that, because you’ve described my journey as well. I had been a classroom teacher for decades when I found Learning and the Brain, and those conferences completely changed my professional trajectory.

Well, thank you Blake for talking with me today.

 

Check out the Effortful Educator blog here.

Surprise: Screen Time (Even Before Bed) Doesn’t Harm Adolescents
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-14-2019

Surprise: Screen Time (Even Before Bed) Doesn’t Harm Adolescents

Read More

We’ve got lots of research on the complexity of adolescent life. And: lots of research on the importance of sleep.

We’ve also got some research showing that technology can clutter our cognitive processes. (To be clear: technology might also be fantastically useful.)

So, what happens when you put all that together and ask about technology and adolescent well-being?

Predictions

I myself would have made two predictions:

One: except at the very extreme end of screen use, I would have doubted technology time matters much for adolescent well-being. Over the years, I’ve seen plenty of studies suggesting that teens do just fine — even socially — when they’re often on line.

In brief: I’ve heard lots of exaggerated concerns, but little persuasive data behind them.

Two: sleep is, of course, essential for human well-being. We can’t think or learn well without it. Heck, we can’t function very well without it.

And, we’ve got research showing that the light from screens delays melatonin onset — and therefore makes it hard to fall asleep.

For those reasons, I would have predicted that screen time before bed — especially LOTS of screen time before bed — would make life hard for adolescents.

The Findings

According to this review, I’m half right. And: not the half I was confident about.

A study that looked at more than 17,000 adolescents in the US, England, and Ireland found that technology use generally didn’t affect adolescent well-being.

(More precisely, they found that screen time accounted for less than 1% of the difference in adolescent well-being.)

And — SURPRISE — they found that technology use before bed had no statistically significant effect.

Amazingly, even one hour of screen time produced no ill effects in this study.

What Teachers and Parents Should (and Should Not) Do

This study reconfirms the point that screen time — except extreme amounts — probably isn’t hurting teens. Even pre-bedtime screens aren’t such a big deal.

(If you’re still having trouble wrapping your head around that second point, don’t worry. I am too.)

So, what should we do?

Well, if we want to improve adolescent well-being, we should NOT focus our efforts on changing their technology habits. After all, if this study is correct, even an optimal change would improve their well-being by less than 1%.

That is: we should NOT be alarmed by the alarmists.

Instead, we should find out what really is stressing them out and focus on those problems instead.

As I find persuasive, research-based evidence to answer that question, this blog will let you know.

STOP THE PRESSES (And Yet, Remain Calm)
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-12-2019

STOP THE PRESSES (And Yet, Remain Calm)

Read More

In the world of science, if you see the right kind of evidence, you have to change your mind.

As of this blog post, I might start changing my mind.

Regular readers know that I frequently decry false claims about “brain training.” In particular, when people claim to increase working memory capacity, we find that those claims don’t stand up to research scrutiny. (For instance: here and here and here.)

In my last post on the topic, I more-or-less gave up on the possibility. In fact, I wrote:

So, from now on, I’m just going to assume that new claims are highly likely to be false.

If brain training claims are subsequently replicated by many research teams; if the methodologies are scrutinized and approved by several scholars in the field; well, if that happens, I’ll relent.

For now, I don’t want to be fooled again.

But maybe — just maybe — researchers might have found a strategy to improve working memory. (I can’t believe I just wrote that sentence.)

April’s Big News

In a study just published in Nature Neuroscience, Reinhart and Nguyen might have found a way to boost working memory capacity.

We’ve got persuasive research showing that working memory overload causes brain waves in different regions to fall out of synch.

Reinhart and Nguyen, in effect, wondered if they could help resynchronize those brain waves.

In a multi-step study, they found that:

First: asynchrony of frontotemporal theta-phase waves corresponds with working-memory declines in 60-76 year olds (compared to 20-29 year olds).

(The findings get even more technical from there, so I’ll just stick with “brain waves” for now. If you want the details, click the link above.)

Second: the right kind of external electrical stimulation resynchronizes those waves.

Third: when the theta waves resynchronized, the WM function of the older subjects returned to levels typical for the younger subjects.

Technically speaking, THAT’S HUGE. The right kind of electrical stimulation improved WM.

What Happens Next?

A) Before we get too excited, we should let some expert skeptics weigh in. Although the concept is easy enough to understand — “the right kind of brain zaps restore WM to higher capacity!” — the specifics are fantastically complicated.

We should, in other words, let other scientists in this field kick the tires good and hard.

By the way: nine researchers have responded here. Several have suggestions for other populations to study: for instance, people diagnosed with dementia. But, none of them spot glaring errors in the methodology.

(For instance: in two studies I can think of, researchers made claims about improving working memory, but tested short term memory instead. This study doesn’t include that kind of switcheroo.)

B) Again before we get too excited, we should recall: this study isn’t about raising WM capacity for students. It is about restoring WM capacity for people who have experienced a decline.

That result might benefit each of us as we age. But, it doesn’t (yet) offer benefits to our students who have typically functioning WM.

However, this technique might help younger people with diagnosed WM deficits. That finding alone could be transformative for some students in our schools.

C) We don’t really know what this might look like outside of the neuroscience lab. As professor Robert Howard warns:

The “real world” benefits of any apparent improvements in experimental working memory function associated with the technique will also need to be evaluated together with the impact of any potential adverse effects of brain stimulation.

For example, induced improvements in working memory might come at the price of worsening of other areas of cognitive function.”

D) Okay, you can now go ahead and get really excited. I have said for years that if we could improve WM capacity, that change would be like the printing press in its effect on human cognition.

For the first time in a decade, I’m starting to think that it just might happen.

If you’d like to learn more, this very helpful summary of Reinhart and Nguyen’s work is a good place to start.

How to (Un)Make System-Wide Changes Based on Research
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-09-2019

How to (Un)Make System-Wide Changes Based on Research

Read More

If you’re reading this blog you already know: brain researchers can offer fascinating and practical advice to improve teaching and schooling.

There’s SO MUCH good advice, you might want to make lots of changes right away to get all those benefits.

Before you do that, let me offer two suggestions.

First: Take Incremental Steps

I worked with a school where the math department dramatically overhauled its entire program, with research guidance along the way.

The department adopted an inquiry based pedagogical model. And, it developed a syllabus designed to space and interleave practice. And it championed a group-work approach. And, to help students manage math anxiety, it adopted a mindful meditation program. And it incorporated lots of exciting technology.

The results: not good. By every measure, the students didn’t learn as much math. (In some cases, the results were quite alarming.) And: stress levels among teachers and students went up considerably.

Here’s the vexing point: the teachers didn’t know what to do next, because they didn’t know which of the changes they made created the problem.

Should they go back to direct instruction? Should they return to the traditional syllabus? Give up on group work and stop mindfulness breaks? Return all the iPads?

Because the grand combination of changes had produced those bad results, teachers didn’t know which one piece (or combination of pieces) to undo.

Potential solution: make one change at a time. Get a good measure of its success or failure before you add the next.

Second: Define Success and Failure in Advance

When we put lots of effort into a new project, we’re naturally inclined root for its success. In fact, we’re inclined to exaggerate its success.

For example: if I commit to a systematic program of retrieval practice with my students, I’m likely to see its benefits. And: to overlook its shortcomings.

To compensate for these natural blind spots, I think, we should define success and failure before we make the changes.

For instance, I might decide that all my retrieval practice work is succeeding if class averages on weekly vocabulary quizzes go up by 5%. It’s failing if that average falls by 5%. Any result in between is inconclusive noise.

(No doubt, what you measure and how you measure it will differ considerably from this hypothetical.)

At the end of the following term, I can check out my class averages, and have a plausible measurement of the results.

When I calculate those averages, I will hope that all my work paid off in more vocabulary learning. But I’ll be less tempted to overhype success — “look, they’ve having so much more fun!” — if cold data throw water on my enthusiasm.

And, that cold water will be all the more bracing if I myself decided on that measurement — well before the experiment even began.

To Sum Up

We should indeed make changes to schools based on psychology and neuroscience research.

To ensure those changes produce the most benefit, we should introduce them at a reasonable pace.

And: we should know before we start how to define success.

Older posts