Skip to main content

Monthly Archives: November 2021

Is “Cell Phone Addiction” Really a Thing?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
November-29-2021

Is “Cell Phone Addiction” Really a Thing?

Read More

I recently read a tweet asserting “the fact that cell phones are proven to be as addictive as drugs.”

Of course, people casually use the word “addictive” about all sorts of things: chocolate, massages, pumpkin-spice lattes. (No doubt somewhere Twitter is being described as “addictive.” My mother tells me that this blog is addictive.)

But all that casual language doesn’t add up “proving the fact” that cell phones are “as addictive as drugs.” So I started wondering: has this “fact” been “proven”?

Good News, Bad News (Good News, Meh News)

Over the years I’ve adopted a simple strategy. When someone makes a factual claim about research, I ask for the research.

In this case, I simply asked the tweep for the research behind the claim.

Good news: He answered!

I’ve been amazed over the years how often people make “research-based” claims and then refuse to provide research to support them.

In this case, he did in fact point toward research on the topic. (I found one website claiming that 16% of adolescents, and 6.3% of the population, are addicted; alas, no sources cited. Happily, they do provide treatment…)

The tweep’s willingness to cite evidence enhances his credibility. Let’s check it out…

Bad news: hmm. “Evidence,” in this case, means “links to newspaper articles.” Generally speaking, USA Today and Vice.com aren’t the best places to find research. Research is published in journals. (Heck, I’ve even criticized the New York Times for its research credulity.)

So: the tweep’s credibility clicks down slightly.

Good news: All three of the links do, in fact, point to underlying research! I didn’t get a direct connection to the promised research, but I can keep digging to find it.

Credibility clicks back up.

Meh news: it turns out that all three articles point to the same underlying research. That is: I didn’t find three studies supporting the claim that “cell phones are proven to be as addictive as drugs”; I got one.

Now: one study isn’t nothing. But [checks notes] one isn’t three.

This Just In: Correlation Isn’t…

Given how much is riding on this one study, let’s check it out.

First off, we can see right there in the title that the study focuses on correlation. As you’ve no doubt heard dozens (thousands?) of times, “correlation isn’t causation.”

In this case, the authors asked 48 people questions about their cell-phone usage. Based on their answers, they categorized some of those people as “addicted.” And they then found brain differences between the “addicted” and “not addicted” people.

This quick summary leads to several concerns.

First: one study of 48 people doesn’t “prove a fact.” It might be an interesting data point, but that’s all.

Second: this study doesn’t claim to “prove a fact.” Using a questionnaire, it DEFINES some folks as addicted and others as not addicted.

Third: “brain differences” always seems like a big deal, but trust me — they might not be.

People who throw the javelin probably have a different “average muscular profile” than people who run marathons, because they’re using different muscles.

People who play the piano probably have different neural profiles than people who dance ballet, because they’re spending more time using THIS part of the brain than THAT part.

It seems likely people who score high on this “cell-phone addiction” questionnaire behave differently than those who don’t; so it’s not dramatically surprising that their brains are different.

Did the phone cause to brain differences, or brain differences cause phone use? We don’t know. (Because, “correlation isn’t …”)

Important to Note

One interesting point does jump out. The brain differences found by this research team do — in some ways — align with plausible predictions about addiction.

Now, the researchers don’t make strong claims here: the word “drugs” appears only once in the body of the study.

This finding isn’t a big surprise to me. Very roughly, the  brain differences have to do with “our ability to control what we pay attention to.” It’s not hugely surprising that heavy cell-phone users have brain differences there (and that people addicted to drugs do too).

Don’t Stop Now

If the tweep’s study doesn’t support the claim that “cell phones are proven to be addictive,” does other research?

To answer that question, I did a simple google search (“cell phone addiction real”). The first scholarly article that pops up says…not so much.

Here’s their summary:

Although the majority of research in the field declares that smartphones are addictive or takes the existence of smartphone addiction as granted, we did not find sufficient support from the addiction perspective to confirm the existence of smartphone addiction at this time.

The behaviors observed in the research could be better labeled as problematic or maladaptive smartphone use and their consequences do not meet the severity levels of those caused by addiction.

In brief: “maladaptive,” yes; “addictive,” no.

As I continued clicking, I found other skeptical reviews (for instance, here), and also found some that embrace the category (with some open questions, here).

Oh, and, by the way: “cell phone addiction” isn’t included in the DSM-5.

In other words, I think we can reasonably describe the category of “cell phone addiction” as an active scholarly debate. To be clear, this conclusion means we can’t reasonably describe it as “a proven fact.”

Why I Care

I am, believe it or not, open to the idea that cell phones might be addictive. If they are — if at some point research “proves that fact” — then this label might help us treat a real problem effectively.

My objection springs from another source entirely.

I worry when debate about measurable claims sinks to applying insulting labels.

If I think that asking students to memorize is a bad idea, I could study research on the topic. Or, I could dismiss it as “drill and kill.” The insulting label replaces the argument.

If I think that teacher talk is bad, I could study research on the topic. Or, I could mock it as “sage on the stage.” The dismissive label replaces the argument.

If I think that cell-phone usage is bad for teens, I could study research on the topic. Or, I could call it “an addiction.” The alarming label replaces the argument.

If we’re going to rely on research to make decisions about teaching and education (which is, after all, the GOAL of our organization) we should never replace research with labels.

Instead, let’s try something else. Let’s replace labels with research…

Horvath, J., Mundinger, C., Schmitgen, M. M., Wolf, N. D., Sambataro, F., Hirjak, D., … & Wolf, R. C. (2020). Structural and functional correlates of smartphone addiction. Addictive behaviors, 105, 106334.

Panova, T., & Carbonell, X. (2018). Is smartphone addiction really an addiction?. Journal of behavioral addictions, 7(2), 252-259.

Billieux, J., Maurage, P., Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Can disordered mobile phone use be considered a behavioral addiction? An update on current evidence and a comprehensive model for future research. Current Addiction Reports, 2(2), 156-162.

Gutiérrez, J., & Rodríguez de Fonseca, F. (2016). Gabriel Rubio.: Cell Phone Addiction: A Review. Front. Psychiatry, 7, 175.

Learning Without Borders: New Learning Pathways for all Students by Yong Zhao
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD
November-17-2021

Learning Without Borders: New Learning Pathways for all Students by Yong Zhao

Read More

In Learning Without Borders: New Learning Pathways for all Students, Yong Zhao outlines an ongoing and necessary paradigm shift in education, offering new ways of thinking and examples from the frontier of this trend. This is a timely piece that highlights the changes that were forced upon us by the pandemic but have been in the works for a long time. The pandemic exacerbated existing cracks in the system but also spotlighted new opportunities. The old boundaries and structures of education need to be transformed if we truly want to create pathways for the success of all students.

This book asks us to fundamentally reorganize our thinking about school and to make it genuinely student-centered. Putting the student at the center of education is a relatively common idea in education, but Yong gives a contemporary angle enabling the reader to systematically build an understanding of emerging roles teachers and students will play in this new education. His book challenges the way we think about pedagogy by integrating discussions of learning pathways, curriculum design, self-directed learning, and existing technology.

At the core of the discussion is an education system that is built around student needs that are determined in partnership with students. But before we can challenge the practices of the system, flawed mindsets are challenged: schools do not prepare students for life — students are already living full lives full of formative experiences, and schools do not transmit knowledge to students — students have unprecedented access to knowledge and are learning all the time without direct instruction.

Along with a changing mindset comes a need for an evaluation of the paths we offer, schools do much more than prepare students for college. Schooling should dynamically align with the individual student pathways, not group students onto the same path. The current structured form of education focuses on curriculum design without students; to support student development, students need to be co-owners of curriculum design. The curriculum should support the students in following their passions and endeavors not in satisfying a list of government determined metrics. Learning needs to be meaningful and Yong helps us ask the right questions to direct our practice.

These changes are not only theoretical but are ready to implement now more than ever before. They are scaffolded by ripening technology that has enabled students to truly take the reins. This has led some to fear a replacement of teachers, but the challenge in education he [proposes is not how technology might replace teachers, but to understand what aspects of learning will be done through technology and what aspects have to be done directly by teachers. He helps the reader find their role in this shift by asking us to question our widely held beliefs and adopt new roles. Students have taken charge of their own learning and we as educators need to gain comfort and facility in acting as life coaches, resource curators, community leaders, and project managers. The challenge is to find the new emerging roles for teachers and students in this new educational ecology.

While Yong critiques ways of thinking he also challenges established and accepted norms. We have new types of students who are often enabled by technology engaging the world in new innovative ways. We are completely ignoring the student entrepreneur in our education approaches, for example. We send these students the message that school does not fit them rather than integrating their skills into the system. In another example, he points out structural flaws in student groupings. We currently ignore basic principles of development by grouping students by age not developmental level or passions. And while the classroom has been seen as a fundamental unit within a school, the new classrooms can span the globe. The book is filled with ideas that help us consider the development of current systems.

One may initially think such a book is only for the progressive school and the changes discussed are above the level of the teacher. However, the attentive reader will notice suggestions for small and large changes that teachers can make in their practice. It is not always about creating a new way, it is often about accepting and becoming aware of the ways that are already practiced in the world around us. Educators can use the principles outlined here to empower students, design classrooms, and engage in ways of practicing education that can affect change.

The crux of this argument is that the system is not addressing student needs and radical redesign is necessary to align with systems of learning that are already taking place.  This book helps the reader see and become part of a new education without borders.

The Best Way to Take Class Notes
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
November-16-2021

The Best Way to Take Class Notes

Read More

Teachers often ask me: “how should my students take notes?”

That question typically springs from a heated debate. Despite all the enthusiasm for academic technology, many teachers insist on hand-written notes. (Long-time readers know: I have a provocative opinion on this topic.)

For the time being, let’s set that debate aside.

Instead, let’s ask a more important question: what kind of mental processing should my students do while they take notes?

If students get the mental processing right, then perhaps the handwriting/laptop debate won’t matter so much.

Possibilities and Predictions

To study complicated questions, we start by simplifying them. So, here’s one simplification: in class, I want my students to…

…learn specific facts, ideas, and procedures, and

…learn connections and relationships among those facts, ideas, and procedures.

Of course, class work includes MANY more complexities, but that distinction might be a helpful place to start.

So: should students’ note-taking emphasize the specific facts? OR, should it emphasize the connections and relationships?

The answer just might depend on my teaching.

Here’s the logic:

If my teaching emphasizes facts, then students’ notes should focus on relationships.

If my teaching emphasizes relationships, then their notes should focus on factual specifics.

In these cases, the note-taking strategy complements my teaching to be sure students think both ways.

Of course, if both my teaching and students’ notes focus on facts, then mental processing of relationships and connections would remain under-developed.

In other words: we might want notes to be complementary, not redundant, when it comes to mental processing.

In fact, two researchers at the University of Louisville — Dr. David Bellinger and Dr. Marci DeCaro — tested such a prediction in recent research…

Understanding Circulation

Bellinger and DeCaro had college students listen to information-heavy lecture on blood and the circulatory system.

Some students used guided notes that emphasized factual processing. This note-taking system — called “cloze notes” — includes a transcript of the lecture, BUT leaves words out. Students filled in the words.

Bellinger, D. B., & DeCaro, M. S. (2019). Note-taking format and difficulty impact learning from instructor-provided lecture notes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(12), 2807-2819.

Others students used guided notes that emphasized conceptual/relational processing. These notes — “outline notes” — organized the lecture’s ideas into conceptual hierarchies, which the students filled out.

And, to be thorough, Bellinger and DeCaro used both “more challenging” and “less challenging” versions of these note systems. As you can see, examples A and B above leave much larger blanks than examples C and D.

So, which note-taking system helped students more?

Because the lecture was “information heavy,” a note-taking system that highlights facts (the “cloze notes”) would be “redundant,” while a system that highlights conceptual relationships (the “outline notes”) would be “complementary.”

That is: students would get facts from the lecture, and see relationships highlighted in the outline notes.

For this reason, Bellinger and DeCaro predicted that the outline notes would help more in this case.

And, sure enough, students remembered more information — and applied it more effectively — when they used the challenging form of the outline notes.

Classroom Implications

Based on this study, do I recommend that you use outline notes with your students?

NO, READER, I DO NOT.

Remember, the “outline notes” worked here because (presumably) they complemented the factual presentation of the lecture.

If, however, the lecture focused more on relationships and connections, then (presumably) “cloze notes” would help more. They would be “complementary.”

As is so often the case, I don’t think we teachers should DO what research says we should DO.

Instead, I think we should THINK the way researchers help us THINK.

In this case, I should ask myself: “will my classroom presentation focus more on facts, or more on relationships and connections?”

Honestly: that’s a difficult question.

In the first place, I lecture only rarely.

And in the second place, my presentations (I hope) focus on both facts and relationships.

But, if I can figure out an answer — “this presentations focuses on relationships among the characters” — then I should devise a complementary note system. In this case, “cloze notes” would probably help, because they highlight facts (and my presentation highlights connections).

In other words: this research — and the theory behind it — doesn’t offer a straightforward, simple answer to the question that launched this post: “how should my students take notes?”

Because learning is complicated, such a usefully intricate answer might be all the more persuasive.

Bellinger, D. B., & DeCaro, M. S. (2019). Note-taking format and difficulty impact learning from instructor-provided lecture notes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(12), 2807-2819.

What is “Mind, Brain, Education”? Defining the Undefinable…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
November-09-2021

What is “Mind, Brain, Education”? Defining the Undefinable…

Read More

Here at Learning and the Brain, we bring together psychology (the study of the MIND), neuroscience (the study of the BRAIN), and pedagogy (the study of EDUCATION).

That is: we bring together THREE complex fields, and try to make sense of their interactions, differences, and commonalities.

Such interdisciplinary work creates meaningful challenges.

In any one of those fields, scholars argue about basic definitions and concepts. So, you can imagine the debates that rage when all 3 disciplines together. (Quick: what does the word “transfer” mean? Each field defines that word quite differently…)

So, who decides what “we” think in the field of MBE? What core beliefs hold us together, and how do we know?

One Answer: Ask Delphi

To solve this puzzle, Dr. Tracy Tokuhama-Espinosa, Dr. Ali Nouri, and Dr. David Daniel organized a “Delphi Panel.”

That is: they asked 100+ panelists to respond to several statements about the intersection of psychology, neuroscience, and education. (Full disclosure: I’m almost sure I was 1 of the 100 — but I don’t have specific memories of my contributions.)

They then crunched all those answers to determine a) the panelists’ points of agreement, and b) their enduring concerns about those points.

For instance, 95% of the panelists agreed with this statement:

Human brains are unique as human faces. While the basic structure of most humans’ brains is the same (similar parts in similar regions), no two brains are identical. The genetic makeup unique to each person combines with life experiences and free will to shape neural pathways.

However, several participants disagreed with the inclusion of the phrase “free will” — including some who agreed with the statement overall.

This Delphi Panel method, in other words, BOTH looks for points of consensus, AND preserves nuanced disagreements about them.

 21 Tenets, and Beyond…

So, what do “we” in the world of MBE believe?

The Delphi Panel supported 6 principles and 21 tenets across a wide range of topics: motivation, facial expression, tone of voice, sleep, stress, novelty, even nutrition. (91% of panelists agreed with the statement “NUTRITION influences learning. Basic nutritional needs are common to all humans, however, the frequency of food intake and some dietary needs vary by individual.”)

Taken all together, they add up to several Key Concepts — almost all of which matter to teachers who read this blog.

For instance:

Teachers should understand some basic definitions, and beware of some enduring neuromyths. (“Learning styles,” here’s looking at you.)

We should know that attention networks can improve, and so can executive functions. (I’m a little concerned about this last statement, as it implies false hopes about working memory training.)

Teachers should know that affect matters as much as cognition; that retrieval practice and spacing really work; that growth mindset is a thing; that interleaving helps.

Excellent Timing

In fact, several of this Delphi Panel’s conclusions align with our upcoming conference on Calming Anxious Brains (starting November 19).

For instance:

STRESS influences learning. However, what stresses one person and how may not stress another in the same way. (95% agreement)

ANXIETY influences learning. However, what causes anxiety in one person may not cause anxiety in another. (97% agreement)

In other words: our students aren’t little learning computers. Their emotional systems — when muddled by the stress and anxiety of Covid times — influence learning profoundly.

Teachers should attend to our students’ emotional lives not because of some misguided mushiness; instead, we do so because those lives can make learning much harder, or much more fluent and natural.

MBE research, and the Delphi Panel, say so.

As a bonus, here’s Dr. Tokuhama-Espinosa explaining the “The Difference between Mind, Brain and Education, Educational Neuroscience and the Learning Sciences”:

Changing the System: Where Do We Start?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
November-04-2021

Changing the System: Where Do We Start?

Read More

I recently spent two hours talking with a group of splendid teachers from Singapore about Mindset Theory.

We talked about “charging” and “retreating.” We discussed “performance goals” and “learning goals.” Of course, “precise praise” merited lots of attention.

At the end of our session, several of their insightful questions focused on systemic change:

How can we help teachers (not just students) develop a growth mindset?

How can we change our grading system to promote GM goals?

What language should we use throughout the school to talk about learning and development?

These questions — and others like them — got me thinking:

We know that psychology and neuroscience research has so much to offer teachers, learners, and education. What systems should be in place to spread the word? 

Thinking Big

This question gets complicated quickly.

In the first place, teaching will (almost) always be INDIVIDUAL work taking place within a complex SYSTEM.

In some cases, we want teachers to have lots of freedom — say, to try out teaching strategies suggested by cognitive science.

In other cases, we want teachers to follow their school leaders’ guidance — say, when leaders follow wise psychology research.

How can we get that balance right?

  • In England, I believe, a national agency (OFSTED) has evaluation standards that apply to all schools and teachers.
  • France is in the process of creating a Council to vet research-based advice to schools and teachers. (LatB speaker Stanislas DeHaene is taking a leading role.)

In the US, of course, local control of schools makes such a system hard to imagine.

What might we do instead? What levers can we push?

I know of one organization — Deans for Impact — that focuses on teacher education.

Their logic makes great sense.

If we can ensure that teacher training programs incorporate cognitive science wisely, we can change the beliefs and practices of a generation of teachers.

Now THAT would — as they say — “move the needle.”

D4I has published a number of immensely useful summaries and reports. This one, for instance, briskly summarizes six core principles of learning: the research behind them, and their classroom implications.

Focus on Schools

Instead of teacher training, we might focus on schools as systems.

Eric Kalenze (blog here) has written a splendid book about creating a school within a school. What The Academy Taught Us doesn’t focus on cognitive science, but it does offer a chalk-in-hand view of building new systems from scratch.

In Kalenze’s telling, a supportive and inspiring principal created just the right combination to allow for meaningful change. (And a school district’s overly rigid policies brought this hopeful experiment to an end.)

I know of several independent schools that are doing exactly this work. The Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning at St. Andrew’s School has been guiding their faculty — and teachers across the country — for over a decade.

The Peter Clark Center for MBE at the Breck School and the Kravis Center for Excellence in Teaching at Loomis Chaffee (the school where I work) both do excellent work in this field.

Perhaps this “Center” model will spread widely throughout schools in the US. If so, these highly local “Deans for Impact”-like initiatives just might — gradually but powerfully — shape the future of teaching.

One By One

At the same time, my own experience suggests the importance of working teacher by teacher.

I attended my first Learning and the Brain conference in 2008. Inspired by the possibilities of combining psychology, neuroscience, and education, I began my own independent exploration.

Although I don’t run a school or supervise teachers, I’m able to spread the word — both as a classroom teacher, and in my work as a consultant (hello Singapore!).

And here’s where Learning and the Brain conferences continue to be so valuable.

The more individual teachers who attend — the more groups of teachers who pool together to share excitement and ideas — the more we can expand networks and create the movement we need.

Perhaps the best way to change the complex system is: one teacher at a time.

I hope you’ll join us in Boston in November!