October 2020 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content
“Sooner or Later”: What’s the Best Timing for Feedback?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Given the importance of feedback for learning, it seems obvious teachers should have well-established routines around its timing.

In an optimal world, would we give feedback right away? 24 hours later? As late as possible?

Which option promotes learning?

In the past, I’ve seen research distinguishing between feedback given right this second and that given once students are done with the exercise: a difference of several seconds, perhaps a minute or two.

It would, of course, be interesting to see research into longer periods of time.

Sure enough, Dan Willingham recently tweeted a link to this study, which explores exactly that question.

The Study Plan

In this research, a team led by Dr. Hillary Mullet gave feedback to college students after they finished a set of math problems. Some got that feedback when they submitted the assignment; others got it a week later.

Importantly, both groups got the same feedback.

Mullet’s team then looked at students’ scores on the final exams. More specifically, if the students got delayed feedback on “Fourier Transforms” — whatever those are — Mullet checked to see how they did on the exam questions covering Fourier.

And: they also surveyed the students to see which timing they preferred — right now vs. one week later.

The Results

I’m not surprised to learn that students strongly preferred immediate feedback. Students who got delayed feedback said they didn’t like it. And: some worried that it interfered with their learning.

Were those students’ worries correct?

Nope. In fact, just the opposite.

To pick one set of scores: students who got immediate feedback scored 83% on that section of an exam. Students who got delayed feedback scored a 94%.

Technically speaking, that’s HUGE.

Explanations and Implications

I suspect that delayed feedback benefitted these students because it effectively spread out the students’ practice.

We have shed loads of research showing that spacing practice out enhances learning more than doing it all at once.

So, if students got feedback right away, they did all their Fourier thinking at the same time.  They did that mental work all at once.

However, if the feedback arrived a week later, they had to think about it an additional, distinct time. They spread that mental work out more.

If that explanation is true, what should teachers do with this information? How should we apply it to our teaching?

As always: boundary conditions matter. That is, Mullet worked with college students studying — I suspect — quite distinct topics. If they got delayed feedback on Fourier Transforms, that delay didn’t interfere with their ability to practice “convolution.”

In K-12 classrooms, however, students often need feedback on yesterday’s work before they can undertake tonight’s assignment.

In that case, it seems obvious that we should get feedback to them ASAP. As a rule: we shouldn’t require new work on a topic until we’ve given them feedback on relevant prior work.

With that caveat, Mullet’s research suggests that delaying feedback as much as reasonably possible might help students learn. The definition of “reasonably” will depend on all sorts of factors: the topic we’re studying, the age of my students, the trajectory of the curriculum, and so forth.

But: if we do this right, feedback helps a) because feedback is vital, and b) because it creates the spacing effect. That double-whammy might help our students in the way it helped Mullet’s. That would be GREAT.

 

The Power of Discord: Why the Ups and Downs of Relationships are the Secret to Building Intimacy, Resilience, and Trust by Ed Tronick and Claudia Gold
Rebecca Gotlieb
Rebecca Gotlieb

The famous, well-replicated “still-face experiment” involves an infant and parent seated facing each other. After a few minutes of play, the parent becomes completely unresponsive and shows a blank face. The infant tries an increasingly dramatic array of tricks to reanimate the parent while becoming more distressed. After a minute of participating in the experiment, the parent reengages, and parent and infant can synchronize once more. Not only did this experiment dramatically shift developmental psychologists’ understanding of infants’ agency in their social relationships, but also the research that built from this study over the last four decades offers insights into how each of us can build a strong sense of self and healthy relationships. In their new book, The Power of Discord: Why the Ups and Downs of Relationships are the Secret to Building Intimacy, Resilience, and Trust, Ed Tronick and Claudia M. Gold argue that discord in relationships is common and we build our sense of self, closeness with others, and ability to manage challenges when we embrace relationship mismatches, uncertainty, and the opportunity they present for growth. Tronick is the creator of the still-face experiment and University Distinguished Professor of Developmental and Brain Sciences at University of Massachusetts, Boston and Research Associate at Harvard Medical School. Gold is a pediatrician and author specializing in early childhood mental health and faculty at University of Massachusetts, Boston and at Boston Children’s Hospital. Although the still face experiment focuses on the infant-parent relationship, the paradigm and this book will be of interest to individuals seeking to improve a variety of different types of relationships as well as people who care for others who may have a history of unrepaired relationships.

People feel pressure to or expect to be in sync with relationship partners, but in reality, mismatch is the norm. The way that mismatch is repaired can nurture us and bring about a sense of pleasure, security, and trust. Parents and infants, for example, are out of sync about 70% of the time, but that mismatch is important for infants, and adults, to feel agentic, self-confident, and competent in managing challenges on independently and with the help of others. In this vein, Tronick and Gold echo previous calls that parents should trust their own instincts, remain calm and present, and be simply “good enough;” they should not strive for perfection, which undermines mental health and well-being.

We make meaning, in our bodies and minds, of moments of mismatch and repair with others and the interpretations we build of these experiences stay with us. Because of our parents’ roles in children’s early environment and meaning-making they act as “neuroarchitects,” changing how their children’s minds and brains are built and even how genes are expressed. When people cannot make coherent meaning of events or cannot construct a vision for a better future, it can threaten their sense of self, keep them stuck in a moment of hardship, and produce feelings of hopelessness. Even if an individual had insufficient experience with relational mismatch and repair in early life or experienced other early life stresses, they can learn to self-regulate as they co-regulate in the context of new relationships. Relationships are the best buffer against stress and trauma, way to heal from them, and the best booster of well-being generally.

To build productive interpretations of the messiness of relationships, people need to feel safe and accept that being out of sync is part of the process of connecting. Relationships are dynamic and each party has a responsibility in shaping the dynamic. Considering the other party’s perspective, remaining open and curious about the other person, listening to them and making them feel like they belong, being playful, and leaving room for uncertainty can support relationship health.

Although Tronick and Gold focus primarily on relationships between two individuals, principles from the still-face paradigm have implications for society more generally. Society needs to invest in social relationships, including but not limited to the parent-child relationship; our relationships are literally, biologically, life-sustaining. The differences between us can be our greatest strength if we allow ourselves to work through relational turbulence, accept that struggle is normal, and recover into better and stronger relationships. In this moment in time, with so much political divisiveness, and when we are quarantining at home and many of us are spending significant amounts of time with family, we could all benefit from heeding Tronick and Gold’s relationship advice.

Tronick, E. & Gold, C.M. (2020). The Power of Discord: Why the Ups and Downs of Relationships are the Secret to Building Intimacy, Resilience, and Trust. Hachette Book Group.

 

Have I Been Spectacularly Wrong for Years? New Research on Handwriting and Learning
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Long-timer readers know my weakness.

I’m usually an easy-going guy. But if you want to see me frantic with frustration, tell me about the superiority of handwriting for taking notes.

Here’s the story.

Back in 2014, two Princeton researchers did a study which concluded that handwritten notes lead to better learning than notes taken on laptops.

That’s a helpful question to have answered, and so I read their study with a mixture of curiosity and gratitude.

Imagine my surprise when I found that their conclusion rests on the assumption that students can’t learn to do new things. (That’s a VERY weird belief for a teacher to have.)

If you believe a student CAN learn new to do things, then the researchers’ data strongly suggest that laptop notes will be better.

Oh, and, by the way, their study does not replicate.

Despite these glaring flaws, people still cite this study — and look at me with pity (contempt?) when I try to convince them otherwise. “But research says so,” they say wearily. I seethe, but try to do so politely.

Today’s Exciting News

When I try to explain my argument, my interlocutor often says something like “handwriting engages more neural processing through kinesthetic yada yada,” and therefore boosts learning.

In the first place, that’s NOT the argument that the Princeton researchers make. It might be true, but that’s changing the subject — never a good way to prove a point.

In the second place, where is the evidence of that claim? I’d love to review it.

To date, no one has taken me up on that offer.

But — [sound of trumpets blaring] — I recently found a post at Neuroscience News with this splendid headline: “Why Writing by Hand Makes Kids Smarter.”

Here’s the first sentence of the article:

Children learn more and remember better when writing by hand, a new study reports. The brains of children are more active when handwriting than typing on a computer keyboard.

“Learn more.” “Remember better.” That’s impressive. At last: the research I’ve been asking for all these years!

Believe it or not, I rather enjoy finding research that encourages me to change my mind. That process reminds me of the power of the scientific method. I believe one thing until I see better evidence on the other side of the argument. Then I believe the other thing.

So, AT LAST, I got to read the research showing that handwriting helps students learn more and remember better.

Want to know what I found?

The Study

The researchers did not test anyone’s learning or memory.

You read that right. This article claims that handwriting improves learning and memory, but they didn’t test those claims.

This research team asked 24 participants — twelve adults and twelve 12-year-olds — to write by hand, or write on a laptop. They then observed the neural regions involved in those tasks.

Based on what they saw, they inferred that handwriting ought to result in better learning.

But they did not test that hypothesis.

So, based on a tiny sample size and a huge leap of neuro-faith, they have concluded that handwriting is better. (And, astonishingly, some big names in the field have echoed this claim.)

The Bigger Picture

Believe it or not, I’m entirely open to the possibility that handwritten notes enhance learning more than laptop notes do.

I’m even open to the possibility that kinesthetic yada yada is the reason.

To take one example, Jeffrey Wammes has done some splendid research showing that — in specific circumstances — drawing pictures helps students remember words and concepts.

If drawing boosts learning, maybe handwriting does too. That’s plausible.

But here’s the thing: before Wammes made his claim, he tested the actual claim he made.

He did not — as the Princeton researchers did — start from the assumption that students can’t learn to do new things.

He did not — as this current research does — extrapolate from neural patterns (of 24 people!) to predict how much learning might happen later on.

Wammes designed a plausible study to measure his hypothesis. In fact, he worked hard to disprove his interpretation of the data. Only when he couldn’t did he admit that — indeed — drawing can boost learning.

Before I believe in the superiority of either handwritten notes or laptop notes, I want to see the study that works hard to disprove its own claims. At present, the best known research on the topic conspicuously fails to meet that test.

Do you know of research that meets this standard? If yes, please let me know!

Meet the Keynotes: Stuart Shanker
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

What’s the difference between self-control and self-regulation?

Dr. Stuart Shanker has written and thought about this topic for years.

Here’s his two-minute answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFIB2AxSM0

To dig more deeply into this topic, come meet Dr. Shanker at our online fall conference. You can learn more and sign up here.

Meet the Keynotes: Chloé Valdary
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

“The Theory of Enchantment is a social-emotional learning program that teaches individuals how to develop character, develop tools for resiliency…but more importantly, to learn how to love oneself.”

Intrigued?

Meet Chloé Valdary in this TedTalk, at at our conference, November 7-8.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB7gsp_zDZc

“Rich” or “Bland”: Which Diagrams Helps Students Learn Deeply?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Here’s a practical question: should the diagrams we use with students be detailed, colorful, bright, and specific?

Or, should they be simple, black and white, somewhat abstract?

We might reasonably assume that DETAILS and COLORS attract students’ attention. If so, they could help students learn.

We might, instead, worry that DETAILS and COLORS focus students’ attention on surface features, not deep structures. If so, students might learn a specific idea, but not transfer their learning to a new context.

In other words: richly-decorated diagrams might offer short-term benefits (attention!), but result in long-term limitations (difficulties with transfer). If so, blandly-decorated diagrams might be the better pedagogical choice.

Today’s Research

Scholars in Wisconsin — led by David Menendez — have explored this question.

Specifically, they asked college students to watch a brief video about metamorphosis. (They explained that the video was meant for younger students, so that the cool college kids wouldn’t be insulted by the simplicity of the topic.)

For half the students, that video showed only the black-and-white diagram to the left; for the other half, the video showed the colors and dots.

Did the different diagrams shape the students’ learning? Did it shape their ability to transfer that learning?

Results, Please…

No, and yes. Well, mostly yes.

In other words: students who watched both videos learned about ladybug metamorphosis equally well.

But — and this is a BIG but — students who watched the video with the “rich” diagram did not transfer their learning to other species as well as students who saw the “bland” diagram.

In other words: the bright colors and specifics of the rich diagram seem to limit metamorphosis to this specific species right here. An abstract representation allowed for more successful transfer of these concepts to other species.

In sum: to encourage transfer, we should use “bland,” abstract diagrams.

By the way: Team Menendez tested this hypothesis with both in-person learners and online learners. They got (largely) the same result.

So: if you’re teaching face-to-face or remotely, this research can guide your thinking.

Some Caveats

First: as is often the case, this effect depended on the students’ prior knowledge. Students who knew a lot about metamorphosis weren’t as distracted by the “rich” details.

Second: like much psychology research, this study worked with college students. Will its core concepts work with younger students?

As it turns out, Team Menendez has others studies underway to answer that very question. Watch This Space!

Third: Like much psychology research, this study looked at STEM materials. Will it work in the humanities?

What, after all, is the detail-free version of a poem? How do you study a presidency without specifics and details?

When I asked Menendez that question, he referred me to a study about reader illustrations. I’ll be writing about this soon.

In Sum

Like seductive details, “rich” diagrams might seem like a good teaching idea to increase interest and attention.

Alas, that perceptual richness seems to help in the short term but interfere with transfer over time.

To promote transfer, teach with “bland” diagrams — and use a different strategy to grab the students’ interest.

Meet the Keynotes: Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

If you’re as excited for our November conference as I am, you might want to know more about our speakers.

Mary Helen Immordino-Yang is an affective neuroscientist and an educational psychologist.

That means: she studies how “children’s emotional and social relationships shape their LEARING, and also shape the BRAIN DEVELOPMENT that undergirds their learning.”

Yes: her work is that interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEeo350WQrs

I got to interview Dr. Immordino-Yang back in 2018; she’s practical and funny and insightful. And she KNOWS SO MUCH.

You can read more here.

If you want to learn more about Rebuilding SEL Skills in the Age of COVID-19, we hope you’ll join us, and Dr. Immordino-Yang.

“If I Want My Students to Learn Math, Should I Teach Them More Math?”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

We all agree, I suspect, that students should learn math. And reading. They should learn history. And science. SO MANY other topics.

What’s the best way to meet these goals?

If I want my students to learn math, is math teaching the best way to go? If I want them to understand history, should I teach more history?

Or, instead, is there a handy shortcut?

If I could help students improve their reading by teaching something other than reading, that alternate approach just might be more efficient and motivating.

In fact, two candidates get lots of attention as “alternative approaches.”  If either or both pan out, they would offer us more choices. Maybe even a higher chance of success.

Music and Math

I don’t remember where I first heard that music education improves math learning. Specifically: learning to play the violin ultimately makes students better at learning calculus.

The explanation focused on “strengthened neural circuits” “repurposed” for “higher cognitive function.” Something like that. That string of words sounded quite impressive, and inclined me to believe.

Given the complexity of calculus, that would be really helpful!

But: is it true?

A recent meta-analysis looked at 54 relevant studies, including just under 7,000 participants.

Their findings? Let me quote key points from their summary:

Music training has repeatedly been claimed to positively impact children’s cognitive skills and academic achievement (literacy and mathematics).

This claim relies on the assumption that engaging in intellectually demanding activities fosters particular domain-general cognitive skills, or even general intelligence.

The present meta-analytic review shows that this belief is incorrect.

Once the quality of study design is controlled for, the overall effect of music training programs is null.

It gets worse:

Small statistically significant overall effects are obtained only in those studies implementing no random allocation of participants and employing non-active controls.

In other words: you get this result only if the study isn’t correctly designed.

And worse:

Interestingly, music training is ineffective regardless of the type of outcome measure (e.g., verbal, non-verbal, speed-related, etc.), participants’ age, and duration of training.

That is: no matter what you measure, the answer is still “no.”

Violin training sure strengthened some neural circuits. But that additional strength doesn’t get “repurposed for ‘higher’ cognitive function.”

If I want my students to learn math, I should teach them math.

Chess and Intelligence

If you watch The West Wing, you know that President Bartlet is smarter than everyone else because he won a Nobel Prize, and he plays chess frequently. He says things like “rook takes queen in five.” And then Leo nods appreciatively.

So smart.

It might be true that being smart makes you better at chess. (Although, Anders Ericsson says “no.”)

Is it true that playing chess makes you smarter? If we want our students to learn math and reading and science, should we teach them more chess? Would some neural circuitry get repurposed?

Let’s go to the tape:

In contrast to much of the existing literature, we find no evidence of an effect of chess instruction upon children’s mathematics, reading or science test scores.

In this case, by the way, the “tape” is a randomized control trial with more than 4,000 students in it. So: that result seems impressively well established.

So far, it seems that if I want my students to be better at X, I should teach them X. Teaching them Y and hoping that Y makes them better at X hasn’t panned out well…

Social Studies and Reading

Reading might be an interesting exception to this rule. On the one hand, reading is a skill that students must acquire.

And, at the same time, they have to apply the skill of reading to the content being read. The more that students know about the content, maybe the better they’ll do at reading.

In any case, that’s a plausible hypothesis.

A recently released report from the Thomas Fordham Institute crunches the numbers, and finds that additional time devoted to social studies instruction ultimately improves reading scores.

Two key sentences from the executive summary:

Instead of devoting more class time to English language arts, we should be teaching elementary school children more social studies — as in, rich content about history, geography, and civics.

Literacy gains are more likely to materialize when students spend more time learning social studies.

In fact, they find that social studies instruction most benefits students from lower-income households, and from non-English speaking homes.

For a variety of reasons, this study looks at correlation, and so can’t demonstrate causation.

However, the underlying theory makes sense. If students can decode the sounds of the words “Berlin” and “Wall,” but don’t know the geography of Germany or cold-war history, they’re unlikely to make much sense of a reading passage about that in/famous border.

In Sum

Students improve at the skills they practice. Those skills — alas —  rarely transfer to distantly unrelated disciplines.

To help students learn math, teach them math. To help them read, teach them to read — and also about the scientific, historical, geographic, and philosophical concepts that make reading so important and so worthwhile.