Skip to main content

Yearly Archives: 2020

Older posts
Newer posts
Mind in Motion: How Action Shapes Thought by Barbara Tversky
Rebecca Gotlieb
Rebecca Gotlieb
July-25-2020

Mind in Motion: How Action Shapes Thought by Barbara Tversky

Read More

Mind in Motion: How Action Shapes Thought is the recent book by Barbara Tversky, an emerita professor at Stanford University, a professor of psychology at Teachers College at Columbia University, and a past president of the Association of Psychological Science.  In this book, she argues that spatial thinking is the foundation of all thought, including abstract thinking. Tversky draws on nine general principles of cognition to show how we think about space and movement and how we use them to think. Among these principles are the ideas that: with cognition there are always trade-offs; action models perception; minds can override perception and impute missing information; and cognition mirrors perception. She suggests that when there are too many thoughts to hold in mind, we put those thoughts into the world in various ways, and the way we put ideas into the world is similar to how the ideas are stored in our minds.

Tversky’s bold foregrounding of spatial thinking will be of interest to individuals who study and attempt to shape thinking, such as educators and psychologists, as well as to individuals who think in space and movement for their work such as chemists, designers, architects, and dancers. She argues that actions in space allow us to integrate information from our senses and to understand the thoughts and intentions of other people so that we might mimic, coordinate, and cooperate with them. In social situations, verbal thinking often falls short relative to visual thinking.

For example, generally we are better at visually recognizing faces, emotions, and scenes, than we are at describing them. Gesturing is one example that Tversky offers of the power of action for supporting thinking. Gestures can express ideas more directly than words and can do so in a way that forces abstraction. How we gesture can reveal how we think about the relation among ideas (e.g., people’s gestures about time reveal the linear and sequential way we think about events). Further, when people are unable to gesture they have more difficulty describing ideas verbally.

The primacy of visual representations is evident in our linguistic history. Visual representations of ideas predate written representations of ideas by thousands of years. For example, it is widely accepted that “see” means “understand” and “look” means “pay attention to.” The way we visually represent ideas or relationships (e.g., with maps, sketches, diagrams, and comics) often distorts those ideas or relationships so that the most salient parts are emphasized and less important parts are excluded. Tversky argues that diagrams and pictures can be very helpful for learning ideas since they can communicate quickly and directly, and can express more than one meaning.

Relatedly, drawing ideas can aid understanding by making the ideas more concrete and promoting coherence and feasibility within parts of the idea. Spatial thinking, which includes creating physical or mental representations and engaging in mental rotation, is related to mathematical ability. Teaching spatial thinking, which can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including for example, through sports, could help to support youth’s math performance.

Tversky reviews what various visual symbols, including dots, lines, arrows, boxes, and certain diagrams, reveal about how we think about a range of topics. She asserts that the way we reason about space, perception, and action is the backbone for how we reason about social, emotional, scientific, philosophical, and spiritual issues. She argues also that while assuming different perspectives can slow the process of coming to understand something, it will ultimately result in a fuller understanding and more creative problem solving.

Tversky concludes by introducing the intriguing concept of “spraction,” which posits that actions in space design our world and create abstractions in the mind. Readers will understand from Mind in Motion that in considering how to augment cognition, we should rely not only on language but also on spraction.

Tversky, B., (2019). Mind in Motion: How Action Shapes Thought. Basic Books, Hatchette Book Group.

Retrieval Practice is GREAT. Can We Make It Better?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-15-2020

Retrieval Practice is GREAT. Can We Make It Better?

Read More

By now you know that retrieval practice has lots (and lots) (and LOTS) of research behind it. (If you’d like a handy comprehensive resource, check out this website. Or this book.)

The short version: don’t have students review by putting information back into their brains — say, by rereading a chapter. Instead, have them pull information out of their brains — say, by quizzing themselves on that chapter.

It’s REALLY effective.

When we know that a technique works in general, we start asking increasingly precise questions about it.

Does it work for children and adult learners? (Yes.)

Does it work for facts and concepts? (Yes.)

Does it work for physical skills? (Yes.)

Does it work when students do badly on their retrieval practice exercises? Um. This is awkward. Not so much…

That is: when students score below 50% on a retrieval practice exercise, then retrieval practices is less helpful than simple review.

How do we fix this problem?

“Diminishing Cues” and Common Sense

Let’s say I want to explain Posner and Rothbart’s “Tripartite Theory of Attention.” In their research, attention results from three cognitive sub-processes: “alertness,” “orienting,” and “executive attention.”

Depending on the complexity of the information I provide, this explanation might get confusing. If a retrieval practice exercise simply asks students to name those three processes, they might not do very well.

Common sense suggests a simple strategy: diminishing cues.

The first time I do a retrieval practice exercise on this topic, I provide substantial cues:

“Fill in these blanks: Posner and Rothbart say that attention results from al______, or_____, and ex_______ at______.”

A few days later, I might ask:

“Fill in these blanks: Posner and Rothbart say that attention results from ______, _____, and _______  ______.”

A week later:

“What three sub-processes create attention, in Posner and Rothbart’s view?”

And finally:

“Describe how attention works.”

The first instance requires students to retrieve, but offers lots of support for that retrieval. Over time, they have to do more and more of the cognitive work. By the end, I’m asking a pure retrieval question.

“Diminishing Cues” and Research

So, common sense tells us this strategy might work. In fact, I know teachers who have stumbled across this approach on their own.

Here at Learning and the Brain, we like common sense and we REALLY like research. Do we have research to support our instincts?

Yes.

In 2017, two researchers put together an impressive combination of studies.

They looked at different study strategies: review, retrieval practice, diminishing-cues retrieval practice.

They tested participants after different lengths of time: right away, 24 hours later, a week later.

They tested different amounts of studying: 3 sessions, 6 sessions…

You get the idea.

Because they ran SO MANY studies, they’ve got LOTS of data to report.

The short version: “diminishing cues retrieval practice” ALWAYS helped more than traditional review (rereading the chapter). And it OFTEN helped more than plain-old retrieval practice (self-quizzing on the chapter).

If you want the details, you can check out the study yourself; it’s not terribly jargony. The process is a bit complicated, but the key concepts are easy to grasp.

To Sum Up

Retrieval practice helps students learn.

If we want to ensure that it works optimally, we should use it multiple times — and successively remove more and more scaffolding from the retrieval practice questions we ask.

Common sense and research agree.

Executive Function Isn’t What You Think It Is (Maybe)
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-09-2020

Executive Function Isn’t What You Think It Is (Maybe)

Read More

As a soccer coach, I want my students to get better at soccer.

As an English teacher, I want my students to get better at English.

And, as a hip-hop dance instructor, I want my students to get better at hip-hop dance.

To accomplish those goals, I usually teach them soccer, English, and hip-hop dance.

That is: I need to tailor my teaching SPECIFICALLY to the topic I want my students to learn. Sadly, for instance, when I teach English, I’m not helping students learn soccer (or math, or dance…)

Wouldn’t it be great if I could teach some GENERALLY useful skill that would boost their abilities in all those areas? This broad, overarching skill would make my students better soccer players, English essayists, and hip-hop dancers. That would be amazing…

Answer Number One

For a few decades now, we have mostly thought that the answer to that question is “no.”

Despite all the hype, for example, teaching young children to play the violin doesn’t make them better at math later on.

The exception to that general rule: EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS.

When children get better at, say, inhibition, they improve across all their studies.

In soccer, they resist the temptation to run to the ball, and instead play their position.

In English, they break their bad habits — like using too many dashes — and choose good ones instead.

And in dance, they follow the tricky choreography that steers them away from the (super-tempting) downbeat.

So, executive functions — task switching, prioritizing, self-control, etc. — help students generally.

No wonder we spend so much time talking about them.

Answer Number Two

Professor Sabine Doebel wonders: what if that account of executive function is just wrong.

  • What if executive functions — like so many other things — depend on specific, local circumstances.
  • What if we don’t develop general abilities to inhibit actions, but we learn specifically that we shouldn’t run to the soccer ball (or use dashes, or step on the downbeat)?
  • And, what if getting better at one of those local skills doesn’t make me better at any of the others?

She explains this argument in a Tedx talk. Happily, this one includes an adorable video of children trying the famous “Marshmallow Test.” (It also has an even more adorable video of children trying the less-well-known “Card Sorting Task.”)

She has also recently published a think piece on this question in Perspectives on Psychological Science. This document, naturally, is more technical than a Tedx video. But it’s certainly readable by non-experts who don’t mind some obscure technical terminology.

Why Do We Care?

If the traditional account of executive function is accurate, then we can help students generally by training their EFs.

If Doebel’s account is more accurate, then — alas — we can’t.

Instead, we have to help students learn these specific skills in specific contexts.

Because Doebel is proposing a new way to think about executive functions, I don’t doubt there will be LOTS of institutional resistance to her ideas. At the same time, if she’s right, we should allow ourselves to be persuaded by strong research and well-analyzed data.

This question won’t be answered for a long time.

But, we can use our (general or specific) executive function skills, restrain our impatience, and keep an open mind.

What’s Better than Attention? Attention + LEARNING!
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-01-2020

What’s Better than Attention? Attention + LEARNING!

Read More

To learn in school, I need to pay attention.

More precisely, I need to pay attention to the subject I’m learning.

If I’m attending to …

…the sudden snowfall outside, or

…the spider on the ceiling, or

…the odd squeaking sound coming from the radiator,

then I’m not paying attention to…

…the Euler bridge problem, or

…the subjunctive mood, or

…the process for setting group norms.

We teachers wrestle with this problem every day. What can we do to help students pay attention so that they learn?

But Does It Work in Real-World Classrooms?

This urgent question has an obvious answer — and that obvious answer has obvious problems.

Obvious Answer: exercise. We’ve got lots of research showing that exercise enhances various neural processes essential to long-term memory formation.

And, we’ve got research — especially with younger children — that movement and exercise in class enhance attention.

Obvious Problems:

First, all that research doesn’t answer the essential question: “do movement and exercise help students learn?” We know they enhance attention. And we know that extra attention should boost learning. But: does it really work that way?

Second, most of that research on in-class exercise happens with younger students. What about older students? And, by “older,” I mean “older than 3rd grade.”

Wouldn’t it be great if someone looked at the effect of exercise on attention and learning in older students?

Good News, and More Good News

A research team in Canada has explored these questions. And, they did so with a helpfully clear and sensible research paradigm.

They invited college students (who are, indeed, older than 3rd graders) to watch a 50 minute lecture on psychology.

One group watched that lecture straight through, with no breaks.

A second group took 3 breaks, each one lasting five minutes. During those breaks, they played a fun video game (“Bejeweled”). That is: they DID take breaks, but they DIDN’T exercise during those breaks.

A third group also took 3 breaks, each one lasting five minutes. During those breaks, they did aerobic exercises: jumping jacks, high knees, etc.. Like the second group, they DID take breaks. Unlike the second group they DID exercise.

The results?

Lots o’ good news:

First: the exercise group were considerably more alert during the whole lecture than the other two groups. (That is: their heart rate was measurably higher.)

Second: the exercise group paid attention much better. They remained on-task about 75% of the time during the full lecture.

By way of contrast, the no-break group started at 60% on task, and fell to 40%. And the video-game group — who took a break but didn’t exercise — fell from 70% to 30%. YIKES.

Third: We care about alertness and attention only if they lead to more learning. Well: 48 hours later, the exercisers remembered more.

That is: they remembered 50% of the lecture, whereas the other two groups remembered 42%.  (50% doesn’t sound like a lot. But the point is: it’s considerably more than 42%.)

So, this study tells us that older students (like younger students) benefit from exercise during a lesson.

Specifically, they remain more alert, stay on task more, and learn more.

BOOM.

Final Thoughts

First: I think it’s helpful to see how each research study builds on previous ones. This study gives us important new information. But, it does so by drawing on and extending research done by earlier teams.

In educational psychology, no ONE study shows anything. Instead, each study builds incrementally on earlier ones — and creates a more interesting, more useful, more complex, even more contradictory picture.

Second: in this study, the students watched video lectures. Their experience wasn’t EXACTLY like online learning. But: it was an interesting relative of online learning.

Should we extrapolate from this study to encourage our online learners to move? That doesn’t sound crazy to me.

Third: One interesting question in this study. The students who took breaks — including those who exercised — took MORE TIME than those who didn’t. The “no break” group took 50 minutes; the “exercise break” group took 65.

So: they learned more — AND it took more time for them to do so. We have to be honest with ourselves about that finding.

My own view: I’d rather give up some class time for exercise if it means students attend and learn more. And, if that means I have to present less content, I’m okay with that exchange.

After all: it doesn’t matter if I teach material that students don’t learn. My job is to help them remember. Exercise breaks do just that.

What’s the Ideal Size for Online Discussion Groups?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
June-24-2020

What’s the Ideal Size for Online Discussion Groups?

Read More

We’re all learning lots about online teaching these days: new software (Zoom), new vocabulary (“asynchronous”), new fads (teaching in pajamas).

In many cases, we’re just going with our instincts here. Relying on our experience, we know to [insert technique here].

But because this is Learning and the Brain, we’d like some research to support whatever technique we inserted.

I’ve been reading about “online social presence” lately, and the research here offers lots of helpful insights.

Defining and Exploring “Social Presence”

Unlike many terms in the world of educational psychology (I’m looking at you, “theory of mind”), “online social presence” means what it sounds like.

When we’re together in a classroom, my students and I have a social presence. We’re aware of ourselves as a functioning group. We rely on lots of familiar cues — body language, facial expression, direction of gaze — to navigate those social relationships.

Of course, those familiar cues barely function online. What does “direction of gaze” mean when my laptop camera sees me looking at the lower left image in a Zoom video array?

Many teachers I talk with instinctively know to focus on building a greater sense of online classroom community. Breakout rooms and discussion boards, for instance, let students work with each other in smaller groups.

While it’s hard to participate effectively in a discussion with 30 people — heck, it’s hard to think clearly in an online discussion that large — the right-sized group might foster better conversations and closer connections.

But: what’s the “right-sized group”?

Instincts and Research

In informal discussions, I keep hearing “four or five.”

For no explicit reason, it just seems plausible that we can track an online conversation among the five of us. More than that will get hard to track. Fewer than that will get awkwardly quiet.

Unsurprisingly, researchers have been looking at this question.

One research team, for instance, measured their students’ evaluations of “social presence” in an online masters class in — appropriately enough — “Assessment and Data Analysis.”

For half the term, these students participated in online discussion boards with all 16 members of the class.

For the second half, their discussion groups shrank to 4 or 5.

What did the researchers learn?

Initial Findings, and Beyond

Sure enough, the smaller groups made a big difference.

According to the students’ own ratings, they felt that the small groups enhanced social presence. And, intriguingly, they felt a greater sense of commitment to this smaller group. (Large groups often create a sense of “social loafing,” where participants feel that others will do the heavy lifting.)

In the students’ own words:

“I felt as though I became very familiar with another student’s ideas and thoughts when I was in a small group of four.”

“This format allows us to connect more to previous conversations instead of having to rehash material that was discussed in earlier conversations.”

In other words, we’ve got some research that supports our teacherly instincts: 4 or 5 students works well to promote online social presence.

Always with the Caveats

At the same time, I think we should keep an open mind on this topic.

First: we don’t have lots of research here. I’ve found a few studies, and they all point in roughly the same direction. But we don’t have nearly enough research to have strong opinions, or to be granular in our recommendations.

That is: we don’t know if different age groups benefit from different numbers in small groups. We don’t know about cultural differences. We don’t know if physics discussions benefit from larger numbers than do … say … history discussions. (I don’t know why that would be true, but we don’t have research either way.)

Second: I think we should focus particularly on the students’ age. Most of the research I’ve seen focuses on college students.

This study I’ve briefly summarized looked at graduate students — who had, by the way, signed up for an online masters program. In other words: they’re probably especially open to, and especially interested in, online discussions.

So, I wouldn’t be surprised if this research doesn’t apply directly to 2nd graders.

Because I’m a high school teacher, I don’t have a prediction if younger students would do better in smaller or larger groups. If you teach K-8, I hope you’ll let me know what your predictions would be.

In Sum

Teachers can foster social presence in online classrooms by having relatively small breakout groups and discussion boards.

Until we get more detailed research, we can follow our teacherly instincts to right-size those groups. The research we have suggests that 4 or 5 is the place to start.

“How to Study Less and Learn More”: Explaining Learning Strategies to our Students
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
June-16-2020

“How to Study Less and Learn More”: Explaining Learning Strategies to our Students

Read More

Because cognitive science gives us such good guidance about learning, we want to share that information with our students.

“Study THIS WAY!” we cry. “Research says so!”

Alas, all too often, students don’t follow our advice.

A key part of the problem: the research that supports our advice is — ahem — really complicated and abstract. We might find it convincing, but our students’ eyes glaze over when we try to explain.

Because I talk frequently talk with students about brain research, I’m always on the lookout for research that…

… is methodologically sound,

… supports useful studying advice, and

… is easy to explain.

I’ve found such a study [updated link], and I think we can explain it to our students quite easily.

Two Are Better Than One

We all know the research showing that sleep helps consolidate long-term memory formation (fun studies here).

We all know the research showing that spreading practice out is better than doing it all at once (fascinating research here).

How about doing both? How about doing two study sessions, and sleeping in between them?

If we could convince our students to adopt those two strategies, that would be GREAT.

And, the research necessary to test that advice is — conceptually, at least — easy to do.

Students learned a topic: French-Swahili word pairs. (This research was done in France.)

Half of them did that at 9 am, and then tested themselves 12 hours later, at 9 pm. (Note: they did not sleep between these two sessions.)

How many times did these non-sleepers have to go through their flashcards to get all the answers right?

On average, they reviewed flashcards 5.8 times to get all those word pairs right. (For the sake of simplicity, let’s just call that 6.)

The other half learned the French-Swahili word pairs at 9 pm. They then got a good night’s sleep, and tested themselves 12 hours later, at 9 am.

How many times did the sleepers go through flashcards to get all the word pairs right? On average, they got them all right on the third attempt.

That’s right: instead of 6 review sessions, they needed 3.

Can We Do Better?

Okay, so far this study is easy to explain and shows real promise. Because they spread practice out AND slept, they cut study time IN HALF to get all the answers right.

But, so far this research measures learning 12 hours later. That’s not really learning. What happens if we test them later?

Specifically, what happens if we test them 6 months later?

Hold onto your hat.

When the researchers retested these students, the non-sleepers remembered 4 of those word pairs. The sleepers remembered 8 pairs.

So: HALF as much review resulted in TWICE as much learning 6 MONTHS later.

The Headline Please

When I talk with students about brain research, I start with this question: “Would you like to study less and learn more?”

I have yet to meet the student who doesn’t get behind that goal.

This easy-to-explain study shows students that half as much review leads to twice as much memory formation — if they both spread practice out over time and sleep between review sessions.

I think we have a winner.

Permission to Feel: Unlocking the Power of Emotions to Help our Kids, Ourselves, and Our Society Thrive
Rebecca Gotlieb
Rebecca Gotlieb
June-16-2020

Permission to Feel: Unlocking the Power of Emotions to Help our Kids, Ourselves, and Our Society Thrive

Read More

How are you feeling? We ask this question often because our feelings are an important source of information about our internal lives, yet too often we do not ask or answer with sincerity. Marc Brackett, a Yale professor and Director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, argues that our emotions, though messy, make us human. Further, when we deny ourselves permission to feel, as we often do, we as individuals and a society suffer adverse consequences. In Permission to Feel: Unlocking the Power of Emotions to Help Our Kids, Ourselves, and our Society Thrive Brackett draws on his extensive research expertise and personal experiences to teach skills for recognizing, understanding, labeling, expressing, and regulating emotions. This book will be of interest to readers wishing to improve their own emotional lives, parents striving to better support their children’s social-emotional skills, educators wishing to implement high-quality social-emotional learning initiatives, employers and employees wishing to improve both the culture at work and the bottom line, and those interested in working towards a more equitable, creative, and compassionate society.

Although western philosophical tradition contends that emotions interfere with rational thought, since Darwin we have understood that emotions are important for our survival, shaping our learning, memory, decision-making, and actions, and health. Brackett details the ways in which our culture of ignoring emotions is adversely affecting all of us, and especially young people. Fortunately, emotional skills (i.e., skills for magnifying our strengths and navigating through social challenges) can be taught Teaching these skills can improve well-being, creativity, academic performance, relationship quality, and leadership skills. Brackett and colleagues developed the RULER framework to summarize the critical skills for building emotional competency.

The first skill in the RULER acronym is recognizing emotions through verbal and non-verbal signals in ourselves and others.  Factors such as culture, personality, context, and technology can affect our ability to recognize emotions. A “mood meter,” which sorts emotions based on the degree of pleasantness and on the degree of energy or arousal, can be helpful in understanding the range of emotions that exist and how they relate to one another.

The second RULER skill, and perhaps the hardest to master, is understanding emotions or seeking to answer why one feels a certain way. We should listen to others’ emotional experiences not just to be sympathetic but also to discover the underlying causes of their experiences. Brackett suggests we act like “emotion scientists” developing and testing hypotheses about why we feel certain ways and seeking to gather evidence through question-asking that supports or refutes these hypotheses.

Although there are over 2,000 emotion-related words in English, in general Americans, know and use relatively few emotion words. Labeling emotions facilitates making sense of our emotional experiences, regulating emotions, and helping one another. As such, labeling acts as a hinge between the recognition and understanding components of RULER and the expression and regulation components.

Expressing emotions, including negative emotions, and listening to others’ expressions of emotion are key for understanding, empathizing, and helping one another. Expressing emotions can help build supportive relationships. The final component of RULER, regulating emotions, provides individuals power over which emotions they experience, when and how they experience them, and how they express their emotions. Brackett suggests a few helpful strategies for regulating emotions, including mindful breathing to calm the body and mind, reinterpreting the cause of an emotional experience to change the experience, and planning ahead to avoid triggers of unwanted emotional experiences. He suggests also shifting attention away from stressful encounters, engaging in self-talk, and taking a moment to pause before making decisions with long-term consequences based on short-term emotions.

Emotional regulation is a lifelong journey. Parents can support their children’s emotional skills by honing their own emotional skills and by initiating family conversations about the emotional culture and expectations in the family. Both teachers and students are experiencing a high degree of stress in school. Students will do better in the classroom when they have a strong relationship with their teachers and when they can learn material that feels relevant and important. Teachers understand the importance of social-emotional learning but many feel that they do not have the time or know-how to teach it. Based on his extensive experience introducing the RULER curriculum to schools, Brackett suggests that strong school-based social-emotional learning initiatives require buy-in from all staff, should be practiced daily in a proactive (not reactive) manner and should be integrated into the curriculum across all grade levels and developmental stages.

With the clear, personal, and research-backed insight Brackett strives for nothing short of creating a better society, by encouraging us all to give ourselves and others permission to feel.

Brackett, M. (2019). Permission to feel: Unlocking the power of emotions to help our kids, ourselves, and our society thrive. Celadon Books.

What’s Better Than Caffeine (And Doesn’t Require Electrodes)?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
June-12-2020

What’s Better Than Caffeine (And Doesn’t Require Electrodes)?

Read More

Although we can’t improve our students’ working memory capacity, we can help them use the WM they’ve got more productively.

We have lots of teaching strategies to accomplish this goal. Well-designed visuals, for instance, divide WM demands between visual and auditory channels. In this way, they functionally reduce cognitive difficulties.

Our students could also do what our colleagues do: use caffeine to boost cognitive performance. When I have my morning tea, that jolt of caffeine doesn’t increase my working-memory capacity, but it helps me use it better. (In the short term, the cognitive result is the same.)

Is there anything else we can do that doesn’t involve drugs?

So Crazy That It Just Might Work

How about exercise?

If caffeine jolts me awake enough to help me use WM more effectively, couldn’t old-fashioned exercise have that same effect?

Researchers in Canada wanted to know just that. Is exercise as effective as caffeine in temporarily boosting WM performance?

To answer this question, they did all the things you’d want them to do. They had different groups of participants take WM tests before and after different combinations of caffeine and exercise.

They controlled for age. They controlled for the amount of caffeine that people usually drank. They controlled for the amount of exercise that people usually did. (If you want all the details, you can read ’em here.)

The result: sure enough, exercise temporarily boosts WM function as much as caffeine does.

And, it doesn’t lead to a post-caffeine crash they way caffeine use does. (Yes: the researchers did measure “caffeine withdrawal symptoms.”)

In this case, 20 minutes of moderately paced walking did the trick. In schools, I’m thinking recess, or PE, or even passing time between classes just might serve the same function.

If we want our students to think more clearly, let them move.

But Can’t We Zap the Brain with a Gizmo?

Given the importance of working memory for schools, you’d think someone would make a brain zap app.

Oh wait, they have. Lots of times.

My friend Scott MacClintic just sent me a link to this “biolelectric memory patch,” which claims what you expect it to claim. (They have in-house research to show that it works!)

Happily, the article Scott sent me includes many reasons to be skeptical of this gizmo. If you’d like another set of reasons, you can check out this article over at JSTOR daily.

The short version is: recent decades have see LOTS of products claiming to enhance WM capacity. With alarming consistency, those products just don’t work. Lumosity’s wallet is $2,000,000 lighter after a fine for misleading claims. (You read that right: two million dollars.)

So, who knows, maybe at last this will be the brain gizmo that works. If I had two million dollars, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Until we get better research, we’ve got two proven strategies to help students use working memory well: skillful teaching, and exercise.

The Limits of “Desirable Difficulties”: Catching Up with Sans Forgetica
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
June-04-2020

The Limits of “Desirable Difficulties”: Catching Up with Sans Forgetica

Read More

We have lots of research suggesting that “desirable difficulties” enhance learning.

That is: we want our students to think just a little bit harder as they practice concepts they’re learning.

Why is retrieval practice so effective ? Because it requires students to think harder than mere review.

Why do students learn more when they space practice out over time? Because they have to think back over a longer stretch — and that’s more difficult.

We’ve even had some evidence for a very strange idea: maybe the font matters. If students have to read material in a hard-to-read font, perhaps their additional effort/concentration involved will boost their learning.

As I wrote last year, a research team has developed a font designed for exactly that reason: Sans Forgetica. (Clever name, no?) According to their claims, this font creates the optimal level of reading difficulty and thereby could enhance learning.

However — as noted back then — their results weren’t published in a peer-reviewed journal. (All efforts to communicate with them go to their university’s publicity team. That’s REALLY unusual.)

So: what happens when another group of researchers tests Sans Forgetica?

Testing Sans Forgetica

Testing this question is unusually straightforward.

Researchers first asked participants to read passages in Sans Forgetica and similar passages in Arial. Sure enough, they rated Sans Forgetica harder to read.

They then ran three more studies.

First, they tested participants’ memory of word pairs.

Second, they tested memory of factual information.

Third, they tested understanding of conceptual understanding.

In other words, they were SUPER thorough. This research team didn’t just measure one thing and claim they knew the answer. To ensure they had good support behind their claims, they tested the potential benefits of Sans Forgetica in many ways.

So, after all this thorough testing, what effect did Sans Forgetica have?

Nada. Bupkis. Nuthin.

For example: when they tested recall of factual information, participants remembered 74.73% of the facts they read in Sans Forgetica. They remembered 73.24% of the facts they read in Arial.

When they tested word pairs, Sans Forgetica resulted in lower results. Participants remembered 40.26% of the Sans Forgetica word pairs, and 50.51% of the Arial word pairs.

In brief, this hard-to-read font certainly doesn’t help, and it might hurt.

Practical Implications

First, don’t use Sans Forgetica. As the study’s authors write:

If students put their study materials into Sans Forgetica in the mistaken belief that the feeling of difficulty created is benefiting them, they might forgo other, effective study techniques.

Instead, we should encourage learners to rely on the robust, theoretically-grounded techniques […] that really do enhance learning.

Second, to repeat that final sentence: we have LOTS of study techniques that do work. Students should use retrieval practice. They should space practice out over time. They should manage working memory load. Obviously, they should minimize distractions — put the cell phone down!

We have good evidence that those techniques work.

Third, don’t change teaching practices based on unpublished research. Sans Forgetica has a great publicity arm — they were trumpeted on NPR! But publicity isn’t evidence.

Now more than ever, teachers should keep this rule in mind.

Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization by Scott Barry Kaufman
Rebecca Gotlieb
Rebecca Gotlieb
May-28-2020

Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization by Scott Barry Kaufman

Read More

Scott Barry Kaufman, author/editor of bold and brilliant books including Ungifted, Wired to Create, and Twice Exceptional, once again released a powerful, creative, and comprehensive book to help people reach their fullest potential and create a better society. Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization is an homage to Abraham Maslow that offers a fuller picture of his theory and updates it with the latest scientific advances about human transcendence. Transcend also serves as an inspiring guide offering wise advice and practical suggestions about how to become more deeply fulfilled and fully human. This book will appeal to anyone interested in the latest research from humanistic psychology or wishing to better themselves. It feels especially timely now when we can all benefit from good health, growth, creativity, connection, and love.

Maslow is most widely associated with a pyramid depicting needs, increasing from basic physiological and safety needs to esteem and self-actualization needs. Maslow, however, never created this pyramid and believed that these needs are much more fluid and individually and culturally variable than the pyramid model suggests. Kaufman argues that a more apt visual representation for humans’ needs is a sailboat to guide people in the direction of the good life. The boat itself represents our basic needs—for safety, connection, and self-esteem. The sail represents our growth-oriented needs—for exploration, love, and purpose.

Throughout Transcend Kaufman offers biographical information about Maslow that helps contextualize his theory and brings him to life in a sensitive and vivid way. Growing up in a working-class, immigrant family that faced discrimination and anti-Semitism, Maslow recognized that when basic needs go unmet individuals and society suffer. Inspired by his study of the Northern Blackfoot Indians on the Siksika reserve in Alberta, Canada, Maslow believed that people are fundamentally good. Maslow’s experience training with Harry Harlow, who is famous for studying maternal-separation, informed Maslow’s theory about the need for connection. Kaufman argues that Maslow believed himself to be a messiah-of-sorts, with critical counsel to offer to future generations. As a teacher Maslow was determined not only to enrich his students’ intellectual lives, but also to uplift them morally.

In reconstructing Maslow’s theory, Kaufman combines physiological and safety needs since recent research suggests that our physiological and psychological needs are entwined. For too many people basic physiological and safety needs are not met. Social isolation and loneliness are also commonly experienced and are associated with increased risk of death. The quantity of relationships in one’s life is less important than having relationships that offer a sense of mutual, unconditional positive regard. When one has meaningful connections with others and has accomplished meaningful goals, one can develop genuine self-esteem, take pride in one’s ambitions, and embracing one’s gifts.
Kaufman’s recent research about self-actualized individuals suggests that, much as Maslow theorized, the characteristics of self-actualization include truth-seeking, acceptance, purpose, authenticity, appreciation, humanitarianism, equanimity, and more. Kaufman found that these qualities are quite common.

Individuals who are more self-actualized are more motivated by growth, exploration, and a love of humanity. Growth and exploration take courage and can increase success. Maslow described mature love as involving caring for others, striving to alleviate suffering, and experiencing compassion. Healthy loving relationships balance each party’s need for individuality with the need for connectedness. The self-actualized individual has a purpose or calling that aligns with her talents, encourages her growth, and allows her to make positive contributions.

Transcendence, which often follows an emotional nadir, involves an integration of the whole-self, seeing sacredness in all things, loving wholeheartedly, and demonstrating wisdom. Kaufman argues that the science of transcendence suggests that society should be moving towards rewarding virtuous action, moving away from nationalism, inspiring awe in young people, and helping individuals discover their potential.

Inspired by both Maslow and more recent research, Kaufman offers a comprehensive set of suggestions for helping us become our whole, best selves. Facing our own mortality can renew our appreciation for the wonder of life and center our attention on our core values. Maslow, and in turn Kaufman, advise seeking out new experiences, especially with art and nature, and creating time for meditation. We can be compassionate with ourselves by embracing our past and our dark sides, thinking about how a loving friend views us, becoming aware of our complex personalities, and striving for growth. We should strive to increase gratitude and awe, admit ignorance, face our fears, take risks, and let go of perfectionism. We can better ourselves by helping others and cultivating our relationships through active listening and question asking.

To explore your own pattern of self-actualization visit Kaufman’s website: selfactualizationtest.com. Transcend offers a unique and powerful combination—intriguing insights into the science and theory of self-actualization and precious advice to guide you to becoming a better version of yourself.

Kaufman, S. B. (2020). Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization. TarcherPerigee.

Older posts
Newer posts