Skip to main content
Learning How to Learn: Do Video Games Help?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Long-time readers know: I like research that surprises me.

If a study confirms a belief I already have, I’m glad for that reinforcement. However, I have more to learn when a study challenges my beliefs.

As you’ll see below, I’m not always persuaded by challenging research. But: it’s always fun to explore.

Today’s Surprise

A study published last October grabbed my attention with its surprising title: Action video game play facilitates “learning how to learn.”

That title includes several shockers.

First: it suggests that action video games might be good for people.

Second: it suggests that they might even be good for learning.

Third: it suggests that “learning how to learn” is a thing. (I’m more skeptical about this concept than most; that’s a topic for another blog.)

Teacher and parent conversations often focus on the potential harms of action video games — both for children’s characters, and for their learning. So, this strong claim to the contrary certainly invites curiosity — even skepticism.

In fact, this study comes from researchers who have been looking at the cognitive benefits of action video games for several years now. Their work prompts lots of controversy; in other words, it might help us learn more about learning!

This study starts out with lots of promise…

Sims vs. Call of Duty

When you read research for a living (as I do), you start to develop an informal mental checklist about research methodology.

This study checks lots of boxes:

Plausible, active control group? Check.

Pre-registration? Check.

Appropriate uncertainty/humility? Check.

Sometimes when I look at surprising findings, I quickly dismiss them because the research paradigm doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

In this case, it all holds together well. (I should emphasize: I’m NOT an expert in this field, and other researchers might spot flaws that I don’t.)

The overall idea is straightforward enough. Researchers worked with two groups of college students.

First, researchers tested students’ “attentional control” and “working memory.”

Next, students played 45 hours (!) of video games.

The control group played games like Sims 3: in other words, a strategy video game, but not an action video game.

The study group played Call of Duty: Blacks Ops, and other such games that involve movement and aiming and navigating (and shooting).

Finally, they retested students’ attention and working memory. Here’s the kicker:

Researchers used new tests of working memory and attention. And, they watched to see how quickly students improved at these new tests.

Researchers wanted to know, in a tidy shorthand, did playing action video games help students “learn how to learn” these new attention/memory tests?

Results, and Implications

Did playing action video games help students learn new attention and memory tasks? YES.

Unfortunately, the research method here makes it hard to quantify the size of the benefit. (Bayesian statistics, anyone?) But the headline is: students in the action-video-game group did better than the strategy-video-game group at learning new cognitive skills.

What, then, should we conclude from this surprising research?

First: We have LOTS of reasons to dislike action video games, like “first-person shooters.” Many include morally repellent plot lines and actions. For some folks, the whole idea of a “game about shooting” is yucky.

At the same time, this study offers us a compelling, tantalizing clue — one that might encourage us to notice these games.

Here’s what I mean…

Second: If you focus on research into cognitive science, you know a) that working memory is ESSENTIAL to learning, b) we don’t have very much, and c) we don’t know of artificial ways to create more.

In other words: working memory limitations create a terrible bottleneck that constricts the potential for learning.

Other have tried to find ways to increase working memory. Some claim to do so. Very consistently, these research claims do not replicate.

BUT…

This study claims to have found a way to help increase working memory.

I can hardly overstate the importance of that news.

So Many Ifs

IF playing action video games improves working memory (we’re not yet sure it does,) and

IF those WM gains result in better learning (this research team didn’t test that question), and

IF we can figure out WHY and HOW such games work their working-memory magic, and

IF we can get those benefits with a game that doesn’t include shooting/killing (and all those moral qualms (IF you have those moral qualms)),

THEN we might be at the beginning of a very exciting process of discovery here.

I’m very interested in following this series of possibilities. Honestly: finding ways to enhance working memory would be a real game-changer for our profession…and potentially our species.

In brief: WATCH THIS SPACE.

(A Final Note)

This study doesn’t look at “learning how to learn” in the way that most people use that phrase.

Typically, “LHTL” involves teaching students about cognitive science and encouraging them to use those use that knowledge as they study.

This research, however, isn’t investigating that strategy.

 


Zhang, RY., Chopin, A., Shibata, K. et al. Action video game play facilitates “learning to learn”. Commun Biol 4, 1154 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02652-7

The Art of Insubordination by Todd Kashdan
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD

The Art of Insubordination: How to Dissent and Defy Effectively, a provocative title in a time of incredible social turmoil. One may think Todd B. Kashdan focuses on defying a system that is oppressive and conformist; the title brings to mind today’s dominant political polarization and the culture wars but also the professional and academic communities that decry individual dissent. In some ways, this is exactly what this book addresses, but in a more profound way, it is a book about taking the chances necessary to discover yourself and build a deeper understanding of your relationship with the society around you. It is a book about growth ­– about psychological creativity, bravery, and flexibility.

This ‘cookbook’, as the author describes it, is about cultivating the strength to explore, openness to ideas that you can stand behind, the power to stand up for your beliefs, and the wisdom of humility. The reader is asked to consider their personal internalized social expectations in a critical light ­– challenge both forms of cognitive bias but also challenge the passive acceptance of social values. This psychological nudge is delivered through historical examples that tickle the curiosity funny bone but are also incredibly relevant in light of current events. They range from topics such as the male basketball players’ resistance to throwing underhanded to our historical complicity in violations of civil rights. What does it take to remain complicit when we feel internal distress and what does it take to nurture the bravery necessary to practice small and large acts of rebellion? It’s easy to see these examples generalized to current efforts of organized labor and the frustrating attempts to return to a pre-COVID world in the classroom that had its own problems we never addressed. Even if you do not see yourself as a rebel, your daily life is filled with opportunities for small acts of insubordination that could improve your lived experience and our shared experience.

Throughout this guided self-exploration, we are also presented with a critical synthesis of scientific evidence from social-emotional research. This includes the surfacing the recent research investigating ‘grit’ as a psychological construct through a clever critique without dismissing it. He practices what he suggests in this book by demonstrating critique and humility, and he asks that you do the same. Even when I found myself wanting to disagree, I felt cleverly disarmed and open to very valuable lessons.

Communities of research and practice often lead us to question whether we belong. His practices will help you not only fight effectively to be heard but also facilitate your development as a better team player at work. It’s not always about finding a new bubble sometimes it’s about exerting personal agency in a skilled way helping others recognize your value but also humbly recognizing theirs. There are more options offered here than subordination, changing careers, or feeling the pressure to fight for your life.

The book also lends itself well to educators and parents. It has an entire section devoted to the deliberate scaffolding of ‘insubordinate’ children, and this easily is generalized to teaching. One of the core goals of education is to foster critical thinking, but too often our goal of critical thinking simply is interpreted as a need to ‘be critical’. The author drives home the point that being a critical thinker involves being humble, empathetic, creative, and open-minded. As much of our current discussions are in echo chambers, the book helps readers as parents and participants in society engage in new diverse social arenas where we can negotiate new realities. Kashdan does not just tell you how important this is, he also builds a road map and offers practical exercises to help you navigate the social and emotional difficulties that will arise when you meet dissenters.

Principled rebellion is not about fighting others, is about the deliberate effort to challenge a system. It is not about combating and tolerating others, it’s about welcoming and fostering ways of thinking. Kashdan encourages us to cultivate our creativity, bring together disparate ideas, and open our minds to challenge systems.

Don’t Hate on Comic Sans; It Helps Dyslexic Readers (Asterisk)
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

People have surprising passions.

Some friends regularly announce that the Oxford comma is a hill they’re ready to die on. (I’m an English teacher, and yet I wonder: you’re willing to die over a punctuation mark?)

With equal energy and frequency, Twitter and Facebook resonate with mockery of the typeface Comic Sans. (Again, it’s a typeface. Why all the pique?)

Comic-sans mockery, however, often earns this earnest rebuttal:

“Comic sans helps dyslexic readers, who struggle with other fonts. Comic sans isn’t dreadful; it’s essential!”

I’ve read this statement so often that I simply assumed it’s true. Would Twitter lie?

Just Checking…

I have, in fact, seen the claim that “comic sans benefits dyslexic readers” twice this week.

However, I’ve started to notice a curious silence: no one cites specific research to back up that claim.

So, I thought I’d find it for myself.

Long-time readers know my routine. I surfed over to Google Scholar, and searched the terms “dyslexia” and “font.” And, to be on the safe side, I also searched “dyslexia” and “comic sans.”

From there, I used Scite.ai and Connectedpapers.com to follow up on my findings.

The results surprised me, so I thought I’d pass them along.

Does Comic Sans Benefit Dyslexic Readers?

I don’t know.

More precisely, I can’t find research that explores that question directly.

When I did the searches described above, I found several studies that seemed promising. And yet, when I looked at the specifics, I found that the researchers hadn’t explored exactly this question.

For instance:

Several studies cite the British Dyslexia Association style guide as their source for this recommendation.

That guide does recommend Comic Sans (and other sans serif fonts, including Arial). However, it doesn’t cite any research to support that claim.

Hmmmm.

This study, helpfully called “Good Fonts for Dyslexia,” does indeed ask 48 dyslexic readers to study passages in different fonts. It asks exactly the question we’re trying to answer.

However, this research team didn’t include Comic Sans among the fonts they studied.

They do recommend Helvetica, Courier, Arial, Verdana and CMU for dyslexic readers. But they have no recommendation one way or the other about Comic Sans.

Double hmmmmm.

Most of the studies I found focus less on font and more on web design. (And, the most common font-related conclusion I found is: fonts designed to benefit dyslexic readers don’t.)

At this point, I simply don’t have a research-based answer to this question.

To Be Clear…

This search genuinely surprised me. Given the frequency of the claim — just google it! — I assumed I’d find a robust research pool.

But, no.

Given the potential for controversy here, I want to answer some likely questions:

“Are you saying Comic Sans DOESN’T help dyslexic readers?”

No. I’m saying I can’t find a research-based answer either way.

“If you’re not an expert in dyslexia, how can you be so sure?”

Honestly, I’m not sure. I’m usually fairly skilled at finding the research basis behind educational claims. (Heck, I wrote a book about doing so.) But in this case, I simply couldn’t discover a convincing answer to the question.

“Look, this research right here shows that Comic Sans does help!”

AWESOME! Please share it with me so I can write a follow-up post.

“My student/child/colleague tells me that Comic Sans helps a lot.”

That kind of individual experience is useful and important. I hope that researchers explore this question, so we can know with greater confidence whether or not it helps most dyslexic readers.

“How long did you look?”

Maybe an hour, spread out over two days. I certainly could have missed something. I hope you’ll let me know if you’ve got a study that looks at this possibility.

TL;DR

You might have heard that Comic Sans helps dyslexic readers; you might have heard that “research says so.”

Those claims might be true, but I haven’t (yet) found research supporting them. If you know of that research, please send it my way!

Perspectives on Critical Thinking: Can We Teach It? How Do We Know?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Imagine the following scenario:

A school principal gathers wise cognitive scientists to ask a straightforward question…

“Because critical thinking is an essential 21st century skill, we know our students need to develop critical thinking skills. If we want to create a school program or a class or a curriculum to foster critical thinking, what guidance can you give us?”

Happily, we don’t have to imagine. At last week’s Learning and the Brain conference in New York, I asked a distinguished group of cognitive psychologists* exactly that question.

The resulting conversation offered practical suggestions, provocative assertions, and a surprising amount of humor.

I’ll try to summarize that half-hour conversation here.

On the One Hand…

Let’s start at one end of the spectrum, with the most optimistic ways to answer the question:

First: we know what critical thinking is.

Dr. Laura Portnoy, for instance, considers critical thinking the ability to support claims with evidence and reason.

If I claim that “the earth orbits the sun,” I should be able to cite evidence supporting that claim. And I should be able to explain the logical process I use to make conclusions based on that evidence.

Dr. Ben Motz agrees with that foundation, and adds an important step: critical thinkers recognize and avoid logical fallacies.

A comprehensive list of logical fallacies goes on for pages, but critical thinkers typically question their own beliefs aggressively enough to avoid the most common mistakes.

Second: we know how to foster critical thinking.

The specifics of an answer probably vary by age and discipline. However, we’ve got specific curricular strategies to help us foster critical thinking among students.

Dr. Laura Cabrera, with this truth in mind, offers a specific bit of advice: start early.

If we want students to grow as critical thinkers, we shouldn’t wait until their sophomore year in high school. Kindergarten would be a fine place to start.

On the Other Hand…

All these optimistic answers, however, quickly give way to grittier – perhaps more realistic – assessments of the situation.

First: because critical thinking is so complicated, no precise definition holds true in a broadly useful way. In other words – politely speaking – we can’t exactly define it.

In cognitive psychology terminology, as Dr. Derek Cabrera put it, “critical thinking has a construct validity problem.” In fact, the five psychologists on the panel – professors all – don’t agree on a definition.

Second: This definition problem has terrible implications.

If we can’t define critical thinking, broadly speaking, then we can’t determine a consistent way to measure it.

And if we can’t measure it, we have no (scientific) way of knowing if our “critical thinking program” helps students think critically.

Third: In fact, if we can’t measure students’ critical thinking skills right now, we might not realize that they’re already good at it.

Dr. Dan Willingham – author of the well-known Why Don’t Students Like School – made this point at the beginning of our conversation.

“Why,” he asked, “do you think your students have a critical thinking problem? What measurement are you using? What do you want them to do that they can’t do?”

In other words: it’s not obvious we should start a critical thinking program. Because we can’t measure students’ abilities, we just don’t know.

Dr. Derek Cabrera made this point quite starkly: “My advice about starting a critical thinking program is: don’t.

Don’t Start Now

Even if we could measure critical thinking, as it first seemed we could, teachers might not want to give it disproportional attention.

Fourth: some panelists doubt that critical thinking is any more important than many (many) other kinds of thinking – creative thinking, interdisciplinary thinking, systems thinking, fuzzy logic…the list goes on.

Dr. Portnoy, for instance, champions good old-fashioned curiosity. If students ask the right questions (critical or otherwise), they’re doing good thinking and learning.

Why, then, would it be bad if they aren’t doing critical thinking, narrowly defined?

The Cabreras, indeed, argue that students trained to think critically often get too critical. They stamp out potentially good ideas (that spring from imaginative thinking) with all their skills at critical thinking.

Fifth: opportunity cost.

Schools already have far too much to do well, as Dr. Willingham frankly pointed out.

If we plan to add something (a critical thinking program/curriculum), we should know what we plan to take out.

And, we should have a high degree of confidence that the new program will actually succeed in its mission.

If we remove a program that does accomplish one goal and replace it with one that doesn’t, our efforts to improve schools will – paradoxically – have deprived students of useful learning.

Making Sense of the Muddle

All these points might seem like bad news: we (perhaps) don’t know what critical thinking is, and (perhaps) shouldn’t teach it even if we did. Or could.

That summary, I think, overlooks some important opportunities that these panelists highlighted.

Dr. Motz offers specific ways to define critical thinking. His talk at the conference, in fact, focused on successful strategies to teach it.

Even better: he wants teachers to join in this work and try it out with their own students.

The question we face, after all, is not exactly “can I teach critical thinking — generally) — to everyone?”

It is, instead: “can I teach critical thinking — defined and measured this way — to my students?”

If the answer to that question is “yes,” then perhaps I should make room for critical thinking in my students’ busy days.

Made wiser by these panelists’ advice, I know better how to define terms, to measure outcomes, to balance several thinking skills (including curiosity!).

When researchers’ perspectives on critical thinking helps us think critically about our teaching goals, we and our students benefit.


* The panelists: Dr. Derek Cabrera, Dr. Laura Cabrera, Dr. Benjamin Motz, Dr. Lindsay Portnoy, Dr. Dan Willingham.