2022 – Page 2 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content

Yearly Archives: 2022

Older posts
Newer posts
“No Cameras Allowed:” Does Taking Pictures During Lectures Benefit Learning?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
October 31, 2022

“No Cameras Allowed:” Does Taking Pictures During Lectures Benefit Learning?

Read More

Should students use cameras to take pictures of boardwork?

My high school students know my fierce anti-cell-phone policy. Nonetheless, they do occasionally ask if they may take a quick picture. (I typically say yes, and then check to be sure the phone goes back in the bag.)

When I do PD work at schools, or present at conferences, teachers take pictures of my slides ALL THE TIME.

Of course, the fact that students and teachers want to take those pictures doesn’t automatically mean that it’s a good idea to do so.

In fact, we have several reasons to think it’s a bad idea.

First reason: those photos might serve as subtle hint to our brain’s memory systems: “you don’t need to remember this, because you’ve got a photo.”

Second reason: the act of taking a photo might distract students (and teachers) from the content we’re discussing.

For example: If my students are thinking about framing the photo correctly (and using a cool filter), they’re NOT thinking about the ways that Fences combines both comic and tragic symbols.

Third reason: we’ve got research!

Check this out…

Prior Knowledge

Researchers have looked at this question for several years now.

In several studies, for instance, researchers asked participants to tour a museum and take pictures of various works of art.

Sure enough, later tests revealed that people remember more about the artwork they didn’t photograph than the artwork they did photograph.

As predicted above, something about taking a photograph made it harder – not easier – to remember the content.

For all these reasons, it seems, teachers might reasonably discourage students from taking photos.

At the same time, we should probably keep asking questions.

In particular, we should acknowledge that museum photography probably isn’t a good stand-in for classroom photography.

That is: my students (and teachers during PD) probably take photographs to help themselves remember important ideas, concepts, and examples. In museums, people might take pictures because that statue is so cool and beautiful!

The museum research offers a useful and interesting baseline, but we’d love some research into … say … actual classrooms.

Cheesemaking, and Beyond!

Well, I’ve got good news. A research team — led by Dr. Annie Ditta at the University of California, Riverside — has indeed started exploring exactly these questions.

In their studies, Team Ditta had students watch 3 short online video lectures about obscure topics. (Like, cheesemaking. No, I’m not joking.)

Participants took pictures of half of the slides.

Here’s the primary question: did students remember more information from the photographed slides, or the unphotographed slides?

SURPRISE! Taking pictures helped students remember the information on the slide.

For the reasons listed above, I did not expect that result. In fact, the researchers didn’t either.

But, those photos really helped.

In one study, students got 39% of the questions right for the slides they photographed, and 29% right for the ones they didn’t. (Stats folks: Cohen’s d was 0.41.)

Given how EASY this strategy is, we should really pay attention to this finding.

By the way, Dr. Ditta’s study explored some other questions as well.

First: students remembered info from photographed slides better both when they decided which slides to photograph and when they were told which ones to photograph.

So, if we tell students to “photograph this information,” we (probably) don’t disrupt the benefit.

Second: what about spoken information?

Common sense suggests that taking a picture won’t help remember spoken ideas (if those ideas aren’t written on the slide). In fact, taking that picture might distract students from the spoken words.

Strangely, in this research, Team Ditta came up with mixed – and surprising – results. In one study, taking a picture made no difference in memory of spoken material. In the other, it benefitted memory of spoken material.

WOW.

So, What Should Teachers Do?

Before we rush to apply research in our classrooms, we always want to ask a few questions.

In this case, I think we should have LOTS of questions.

First: Dr. Ditta’s research looked at brief, online lectures for college students.

Do these conclusions apply to longer classes? To in-person classes? For K-12 students? To students who aren’t neurotypical?

We just don’t (yet) know.

Second: participants in these studies didn’t do anything with the photos. They simply took them.

Would we find the same pattern for students who reviewed their photos, compared to – say – reviewing their notes?

We don’t (yet) know.

Third: participants were tested on their knowledge 5 minutes after the videos were done.

We’ve got LOTS of research showing that short-term gains don’t necessarily result in long-term learning.

So, would these findings hold a week later? A month later?

We don’t (yet) know.

 

Given all the things we don’t know, how can this research benefit us?

For me, these studies open up new possibilities.

In the past, as I described above, I permitted students (and teachers) to take photos. But I tried to discourage them.

I would even – on occasion – explain all the reasons above why I thought taking photos would reduce learning.

Well, I’m no longer going to discourage.

Instead, I’ll explain the complex possibilities.

Perhaps taking photos helps memory because it signals that THIS INFORMATION DESERVES ATTENTION.

Or, perhaps taking photos helps only if students DON’T review before tests. But, taking notes would help more … especially the students who DO review before tests.

And perhaps, just perhaps, this research team got flukey results because even well-done research sometimes produces flukey results. Future classroom research about taking photos of slides might ultimately suggest that (despite this thoughtful work), it really is a bad idea.

I wish the answer were simpler, but it just isn’t.

TL;DR

Surprising new research suggests that taking photos of lecture slides helps college students remember slide contents – even when students don’t review those photos.

Before we teachers rush to make dramatic changes, we should think carefully how this research fits our classrooms and contexts.

And, we should weigh this memory strategy against lots of other strategies – like retrieval practice.

Finally: let’s all watch this space!

Ditta, A. S., Soares, J. S., & Storm, B. C. (2022). What happens to memory for lecture content when students take photos of the lecture slides?. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.

Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176-199.

 

It’s Funny (but It’s Not): Our Instincts about Learning are Often Badly Wrong
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
October 25, 2022

It’s Funny (but It’s Not): Our Instincts about Learning are Often Badly Wrong

Read More

Every now and then, research is just plain funny. Here’s the story:

If you’ve spent even a hot minute at a Learning and the Brain conference, you know that multitasking is not a thing.

When we undertake two cognitively demanding tasks “simultaneously,” we actually switch rapidly back and forth between them.

The result: we do worse at both.

That is: if you’re reading this blog post while listening to the news, you won’t understand or remember either very well. (That is: not as well as you would have done with each task separately.)

Where’s the funny?

In 2017, Shalena Srna published research about our perceptions of multitasking.

She found that we do better at activities when we think we’re multitasking than when we think we’re monotasking.

For instance, participants transcribed a video lecture about sharks.

Researchers told half of the participants that listening and transcribing are two different things, so they would be multitasking.

They told the other half that listening and transcribing are one thing, so they’re not multitasking.

Sure enough, the group that perceived transcription as multitasking transcribed more words, and remembered more content, than the group who perceived the same task as monotasking.

Amazing.

Srna’s team suspects that people who think they’re multitasking concentrate harder, and so do better.

Hence this paradox: people don’t multitask well, but we monotask better when we think we’re multitasking.

The Bigger Picture

So, what do we do with this comical finding?

On the one hand, I don’t think it has direct teaching implications. That is, we teachers should NOT pretend to our students that they’re multitasking so that they’ll monotask better. (Why not? Well, misleading students is usually a very bad idea…)

On the other hand, this study provides an important reminder:

Humans don’t intuitively understand how we think and learn.

We teachers (and we students) might just FEEL that a particular learning strategy works well for us. Sadly, those powerful feelings are often just plain wrong.

I can think of several research examples of this not-so-funny problem.

In 2009, Dr. Nate Kornell and Dr. Lisa Son published a study about retrieval practice.

Students learned some word pairs.

They practiced HALF of those words with simple review.

They practiced the OTHER HALF with retrieval practice.

Unsurprisingly (to the researchers — and to us), the students remembered more words after retrieval practice than after review. (About 6% more.)

Surprisingly, they PREDICTED that they would remember more words after the review. (About 7% more.)

That is: even thought they actually formed stronger memories after retrieval practice, they thought they formed stronger memories after another (less effective) strategy.

Why, because (say it with me):

Humans don’t intuitively understand how we think and learn.

Honestly, this insight is just bad news.

The Bigger Picture

Another study — actually a literature review — makes the same point more broadly.

Dr. Nick Soderstrom, working with Dr. Robert Bjork, reviewed research into short-term performance and long-term learning.

To summarize this ENORMOUS review, they found that teaching strategies which benefit short-term peformance do not consistently benefit long-term learning.

That is: imagine that I introduce a new topic in class, and give my students a quick low-stakes quiz at the end of that class. The strategies that boost class-end quizzes probably won’t help students learn well enough to demonstrate understanding on a later test.

They understood it today, but not long-term.

The Even Bigger Question: So What?

So far, these research findings have the whiff of humor.

Ain’t it funny that we monotask better when we think we’re multitasking? LOL.

In truth, this consistent finding — humans don’t intuitively understand how we think and learn — has important implications.

Here’s what I mean:

In theory, the field of Mind, Brain, and Education creates conversations among equals: psychology researchers, neuroscience researchers, and teachers/academic leaders.

In practice, this field often results in researchers telling teachers what to do.

I myself, in my own work, spent LOTS of time championing the voice of teachers.

We teachers can, should, MUST speak up for ourselves. Our experience — both individual and professional — matters in these conversations. We’re not here to obey; we’re here to share ideas for mutual benefit.

However, because “humans don’t intuitively understand how we think and learn,” we must speak up for our experience AND we must do so modestly.

We must do so with an open mind.

Yes, my experience tells me that teaching this way helps students learn.

But, my definition of “learn” is “do well on the class-end quiz.” Soderstrom shows us — very convincingly — that class-end quizzes don’t predict long-term learning and understanding. (Of course: “long-term learning and understanding” is my goal!)

Yes, my experience tells me that I can multitask! Alas, research shows I’m just monotasking efficiently.

My gut tells me that simple rereading results in more learning than retrieval practice. Alas, my gut is just plain old wrong.

In other words: we teachers should have a role in this Mind, Brain, Education conversation. To be most effective in that role — to merit that role — we must acknowledge the limitations of our insight, training and professional experience.

This balance is VERY DIFFICULT to get right. I hope we can talk more about finding a harmonious tension between speaking up and listening with humility and curiosity.

Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2009). Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory, 17(5), 493-501.

Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176-199.

Behind their Screens What Teens Are Facing (and Adults Are Missing) by Emily Weinstein and Carrie James
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD
October 19, 2022

Behind their Screens What Teens Are Facing (and Adults Are Missing) by Emily Weinstein and Carrie James

Read More

So, you think you know what effect social media has on teens? There is one problem: too much screen time. Many of us have very strong opinions like this mostly developed through poor media coverage of the research, but you will develop much a more nuanced, well-reasoned and balanced argument through this book that will have you carefully reevaluating what you think you know. In Behind their Screens What Teens Are Facing (and Adults Are Missing), Emily Weinstein and Carrie James discuss data gleaned from thousands of teen interviews as they tried to understand the relationship between teens and digital devices and platforms. Both authors are Harvard researchers and parents bringing to their writing the insights from both research and understanding of what it means to be a parent for teens today. The book is a very nice succinct and clear summary of the research done to date on the issue.

Teen lives today are highly politicized and sensationalized, and often media insights are presented as absolute truth. This book asks you to look at the research a bit more deeply and to ask important critical questions. You are not expected to accept the authors’ conclusions at face value, instead, they walk you through multiple interpretations, making sure you first know the right questions to ask. While the entirety of the text gives detail about the methods and motivations of the authors’ research, the appendix further explains their methods enabling practitioners and researchers alike to learn from the careful consideration Weinstein and James gave their design. In many ways, their research design itself shows us how to communicate with teens. Much of which involves simply giving them the space to speak but also knowing what potential responses a carefully constructed question will afford.

Grounded in Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of human development, the teen develops a nested set of societal, social and biological systems. To understand social media practices, we need to examine teen relationships with not only peers but also parents and adults who seek to find solutions for teen behavior and perhaps put too much blame on social media.  We also need to respect their biological development, and how their neural circuitry sets them up to value rewards in different ways at different ages. The authors here are not simply trying to ask if social media impacts stress, anxiety, self-image, and depression in simple causal relationships; they put value in the context and the interaction of teen values and goals with digital practices. Skillfully, these authors managed to bring all of this complexity into a clear, informative, and entertaining read.

Individuality and variations in perspective are recurring themes in the text; teens are unique and complicated and there is no panacea that explains all relationships. They correctly point to individual variations in developmental trajectories for teens, the systematic variation in how teens interact with and internalize their relationships with the digital world. And, while always systematic, they remind us throughout that this is a complex system of relations that does not always have simple answers. Really, the best way to understand a teen is to listen.

The book covers a wide array of topics, and the authors do not shy away from the tough questions. Topics cover teen perspectives on politics, trading nudes, sexting, and teens’ understanding and concerns about their digital footprint. Through each of these topics, they ask not only what the impacts on teen wellness are but more importantly what are the reasons teens engage in these behaviors. What are the perceived benefits for teens and the social implications for engaging and not engaging?

Overall, the authors make a very clear case that we need to not simply tell teens how to use digital devices, offer them well-rehearsed sound bites, and beat them over the brow with restrictions, shaming, and warnings. While this may make us feel we have done our job this is not the more difficult work of trying to engage them in meaningful discussion where we all could learn something. We need to spend time with them, listen to them, and respect that they are engaging in digital behaviors for reasons: teens are not simply little adults; their motivations and experiences differ from ours. Our responsibility is to better understand those reasons and be there to help them write the stories that will empower them in their own development.

Test Anxiety: How and When Does It Harm Students?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
October 16, 2022

Test Anxiety: How and When Does It Harm Students?

Read More

When our students learn, we naturally want them to show us what they’ve learned.

Most schools rely, in varying degrees, on tests. The logic seems simple: if students know something, they can demonstrate their knowledge on this quiz, or test, or exam.

But, what about students who feel test anxiety?

These students might learn the material, but not be able to show what they’ve learned — at least, not as well.

The idea of test anxiety has been around for decades, and a significant pool of research suggests it correlates with measurably lower test grades.

How do we fix the problem?

Step 1: Defining the Problem

As always, we can’t really fix a problem until we understand the problem.

When we consider test anxiety, the explanation seems entirely straightforward.

Most students feel some degree of stress during tests. That’s normal, and can be helpful.

Some students, however, feel unhelpfully high levels of stress during tests. Distracted by sweaty palms and intrusive thoughts, they don’t concentrate on the cognitive task at hand.

In short: test anxiety harms the student during the test. Teachers can help students by reducing their stress in the moment. (Yes, we have lots of strategies to do so — see below.)

But wait!

What it that theory isn’t true? What if test anxiety muddles cognitive performance at some other time? If that’s true, then our “in-the-moment” strategies won’t help — or, won’t help enough.

Intriguing Hypothesis

How would we test this unsettling question?

A group of researchers in Germany discovered a thoughtful strategy.

Medical students in Germany spend lots of time (like, say, months) preparing for a high-stakes final exam.

Dr. Maria Theobald worked with over 300 of these students, who used an online learning platform to study. On this platform, these students…

… practiced problems from previous exams, and

… took five practice tests.

She also measured their test anxiety in two ways.

First, she measured their overall test anxiety, with a standard questionnaire.

Second, she measured their day-to-day test anxiety, rating their “tension about the upcoming study day” on a 1-5 scale.

And, of course, she measured lots of other things. (Spoiler alert: Theobald measured students’ working memory — a detail that will be important later.)

What happens when these researchers put all these pieces together?

Surprising Results

Here are the headlines:

Test anxiety does not harm students’ exam performance in the moment.

Instead, it does harm their performance during the preparation for the exam.

Why does Theobald reach this conclusion?

If test anxiety harms students in the moment, then these students should do worse on the FINAL TEST than they did on the PRACTICE PROBLEMS and the PRACTICE TESTS.

Imagine that a student averaged an 85 on practice problems and an 84 on practice tests, but score a 75 on the final test. We would say:

“Something strange happened.

It looks like anxiety prevented students from demonstrating the knowledge they obviously have. (They obviously have it because they scored so well on the practice problems/tests).”

Theobald’s data, however, did not fit that pattern at all.

Instead, anxious students made less progress during the months of study BEFORE the test. And, their final test score was right in line with that earlier (lower) performance.

That is: anxious students scored 75 on the practice problems and practice tests … and then a 75 on the final exam as well. (These numbers are examples, not real data.)

So, we find ourselves saying:

“Hmm. These anxious students scored consistently lower than their peers — both on the final test and on the months of practice work they did.

Their anxiety didn’t lower their final score in the moment. It interfered with their learning trajectory as they prepared for the final test.”

Reader: I did not expect these results.

What Should Teachers Do?

First, we should — in my view — continue with stress reduction strategies in the moment.

We’ve got evidence that letting students vent their stress improves exam performance. And we’ve got evidence that helping students reframe stress as positive (“I’m excited!”) helps as well.

So, I wouldn’t give up on these pre-test strategies just yet.

Second, this research encourages us to take the long view. “In the moment” strategies might help some, but longer-term strategies now sound more urgent.

Because Theobald’s research is so new, I haven’t seen any responses to it — much less research based suggestions.

But I think of “values affirmation” as one potential (let me repeat: “potential”) way to reduce this kind of test anxiety.

I’ll be keeping my eye out for others. If you hear of a promising one, I hope you’ll let me know.

Potential Limitations

First: an important limitation.

All research studies include limitations, so it’s no criticism to say this study does too.

Specifically, this research was done with students completing medical school. That is: they (probably) have been highly academically successful for decades. They (probably) bring higher levels of motivation than many students.

And, their test-anxiety profile might not match those of my students, or of yours.

Until these findings are replicated in other students populations (and cultural contexts), I would rely on professional experience to adapt them to our own settings.

Second: an important non-limitation.

I noted above that Theobald measured students’ working memory. (Long-time readers know: I’m obsessed with working memory.)

This research team speculated — plausibly — that working memory capacity might mitigate the effects of test anxiety.

That is: students with more cognitive space to think might feel less distracted by anxious thoughts.

However, their data did not support that hypothesis. Students with high working memory are just as troubled by test anxiety as those with lower working memory.

TL;DR

In this study with German medical students, test anxiety interferes NOT with student performance on the final test, but with their learning before the test.

If further studies support this conclusion, we should refocus our work on helping those students during the weeks and months before the test itself.

Theobald, M., Breitwieser, J., & Brod, G. (2022). Test Anxiety Does Not Predict Exam Performance When Knowledge Is Controlled For: Strong Evidence Against the Interference Hypothesis of Test Anxiety. Psychological Science, 09567976221119391.

Does Mindfulness Help? A Blockbuster New Study
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
October 09, 2022

Does Mindfulness Help? A Blockbuster New Study

Read More

Few ideas in education sound better than mindfulness.

If mindfulness programs work as intended, teachers and schools can help students center their attention and lower their stress.

We’ve got suggestive research indicating that, when done properly, such programs can improve wellbeing.

Perhaps they can even helps students learn more. (We school people really like research that helps students learn more.)

What’s not to love?

Not Feeling the Love; Really Feeling the Love

Although I’ve linked to suggestive research above, this field does have a research problem.

Most mindfulness studies include relatively few people.

And, their study designs aren’t often persuasive. (The topic of “study design” gets technical quickly. The simplest version is: to say that “research shows this” convincingly, a study needs to check A LOT of boxes. Not many mindfulness studies do.)

So, we’d love a study with LOTS of people. And, we’d like a really good study design.

So, how about:

A study with 8,000 students.

In 85 schools.

Lasting over two years.

With a pre-registered study design.

In this study, researchers paired similar schools: for example, two large schools, located in Wales, with similar socio-economic makeup, and so forth.

One school in that pair got a 10-week curriculum in School Based Mindfulness Training. School teachers ran these sessions, which included mindfulness exercises and home practice and so forth.

The other school in the pair continued the SEL work that they were doing. (Researchers evaluated the extant SEL programs to ensure they were good quality.)

So: did the Mindfulness training benefit students more that ongoing SEL work?

What Researchers Measured; What They Found

This research team measured three primary outcomes: risk for depression, social-emotional functioning (with a “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire”), and well-being.

And, believe it or not, they measure twenty-eight secondary outcomes: executive function, drug and alcohol use, anxiety, and so forth.

Did the students who got the mindfulness training show statistically significant differences compared to those who got the “teaching as usual” SEL training?

The researchers themselves had been optimistic. In the reserved language of research, they write:

Our premise was that skills in attention and social-emotional-behavioral self-regulation underpin mental health and well-being across the full spectrum of well being.

“Skills in attention and social-emotional-behavioral self-regulation” sounds A LOT like mindfulness, doesn’t it?

Their review of earlier research, and their own pilot study, showed a “promise of effectiveness.” But, they designed and ran this 2-year-8000-student study to be sure.

What did they find?

Basically, nothing.

They write that they “found no evidence that [school based mindfulness training] was superior to [teaching as usual]” one year after the training was over.

In the primary outcomes, they found no differences for depression, well-being, and social-emotional function.

In the secondary outcomes, in fact, they found students in the mindfulness group had slightly worse results in five categories:

… higher levels of self-reported hyperactivity and inattention,

… higher panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive scores,

… lower levels of mindfulness skills.

And so forth.

These differences weren’t large, but they certainly don’t suggest that mindfulness training is better that other SEL programs.

Remaining Questions

Any study including 8000+ people, and measuring 30+ variables (!), will result in LOTS of details, and lots of questions about methodology.

These points jump out at me:

First: these researchers have done an impressively thorough job.

Reasonable people will push back on their findings. But this research team has obviously taken extraordinary care, and provided an immense amount of information for others to examine. (Check out their website.)

Second: I’ve traditionally been skeptical of “teaching as usual” control groups. Here’s why:

Some teachers got a shiny new thing: mindfulness training! Other teachers got nothing: the SEL curriculum they’ve been doing all along.

I’m rarely surprised when the new thing produces better results — it’s new!

However, in this case, the new thing DIDN’T produce better results. The results, basically, were identical.

So, my typical objection doesn’t really apply here.

Third: although 43 schools added mindfulness programs, more than half of them continued with the SEL training they were already doing.

That is, we’re not exactly comparing mindfulness to other SEL approaches. Some schools did only mindfulness; others did only SEL; others offered a blend of both.

Would the mindfulness programs produce better results if they replaced the SEL programs rather than combined with them? We don’t know.

Fourth: Why didn’t the mindfulness programs help?

On reason might be: most students just didn’t do the mindfulness exercises consistently.

On a 0-5 scale, students on average rated their mindfulness practice as 0.83. As in, less than 1. As in, they simply didn’t practice much mindfulness.

If I don’t take my migraine medication, it won’t help reduce my migraines. If I don’t do my mindfulness exercises, I’m unlikely to get the benefits of mindfulness.

Would these programs work if they took place in school, so students practiced more mindfulness? We don’t know.

TL;DR

This well designed study — including more than 8000 participants — strongly suggests that mindfulness training doesn’t produce more (or fewer) benefits than other SEL approaches.

This research doesn’t suggest we must cancel the programs we have. However, it pushes back against the argument that mindfulness provides distinct advantages, and that all responsible schools must adopt such programs immediately.

As long a schools tend responsibly to their students’ social-emotional needs, a variety of approaches can work equally well.

Kuyken, W., Ball, S., Crane, C., Ganguli, P., Jones, B., Montero-Marin, J., … & MYRIAD Team. (2022). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of universal school-based mindfulness training compared with normal school provision in reducing risk of mental health problems and promoting well-being in adolescence: the MYRIAD cluster randomised controlled trial. Evidence-based mental health, 25(3), 99-109.

The Unexpected Problem with Learning Styles Theory
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
October 02, 2022

The Unexpected Problem with Learning Styles Theory

Read More

I recently read a much-liked Twitter post that said (I’m paraphrasing here):

If you try to debunk Learning Styles Theory and you face unexpected resistance, start looking for the profit motive.

Hmmm.

To be clear: learning styles theory just doesn’t have plausible research support.

If and when we can debunk it, we certainly should.

But, in my own experience at least, teachers who believe the theory often do so with the best of motives.

Mocking those motives — or, even worse, implying believers have wicked motives — seems unfair. And, likely to prove counterproductive.

Yes, grifters exist. Yes, we should call them out. But most teachers who offer “unexpected resistance” can explain why — for reasons that have nothing to do with profits. (Honestly, if teachers were driven by profits, would we have joined this profession?)

Surface Plausibility

In the first place, MANY teachers learned about Learning Styles Theory in their education programs.

In fact, Blake Harvard — “The Effortful Educator” — searched the websites of 9 major schools of education, and found that MOST referenced Learning Styles Theory positively.

Can we be surprised that teachers believe what their professors teach them?

Equally important, this theory seems to align with much of our classroom experience.

After all, daily classroom life suggests that students learn differently. Some students respond well to this approach, while others need another approach entirely.

So, it seems that Learning Styles Theory (helpfully?) explains these differences, and (helpfully?) suggests a coherent way to respond to them.

Why wouldn’t teachers believe a theory that a) we learned in graduate school, and b) aligns with our daily experience?

Getting Personal

In fact, “unexpected resistance” to Learning Styles Theory often stems from an even deeper source.

Many dedicated teachers have been relying on it for years. Often, their self-definition as a good and caring teachers begins with or includes their fidelity to this theory:

“My students know I care about them because I tailor my instruction to their learning style!“

When we tell teachers that we simply have no evidence to support the theory (and, to be clear, we don’t), we’re not simply asking them to change what they do and believe.

Instead, we are — in effect — asking them to admit their their exemplary teaching practice was (at best) useless, and (possibly) detrimental. FOR YEARS.

That admission, of course, is incredibly painful and troubling.

For us to mock teachers (“look for the profit motive!”) for this painful struggle … well, I simply don’t understand how that approach will help. I can’t remember the last time that mockery helped me change my teaching practice for the better.

Plausible Alternatives

If we shouldn’t accuse people of being charlatans (hint: I think we mostly shouldn’t), how should we contradict these misbeliefs?

As I’ve written before, I do think this is a very difficult problem.

We really should contradict those false beliefs, but I’m not at all sure that doing so encourages people to adopt new ones.

My current approach relies on these steps.

First: rather that asking teachers to stop believing one thing, I encourage them to start thinking about something else.

My hopeful theory: the more time they’re thinking about, say, working memory, the less time they’re thinking about Learning Styles Theory.

Second: I don’t contradict in public. I try to chat with believers one-on-one.

Honestly, this approach includes perils. If I don’t contradict in public, others might believe that theory does have merit.

However, as noted above, I think increasing shame reduces the likelihood that new advice will stick.

Third: I provide research, and ask lots of genuinely curious questions.

I hope that peer-to-peer curiosity will ultimately change more minds than more confrontational strategies.

 

To be clear, I’m not certain that my approach has more merit than others. I certainly have no research suggesting that it will work.

But experience tell me that “supportive listening” beats “questioning motives” as a motivational approach.

If you’ve got suggestions and strategies, please share them!

Marshmallows and Beyond: Cultural Influences on Self-Regulation
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 25, 2022

Marshmallows and Beyond: Cultural Influences on Self-Regulation

Read More

Few psychology studies have created a bigger stir than Walter Mishel’s research into marshmallows.

Okay, he was really doing research into self-control.

But the marshmallow images were adorable: all those cute children desperately trying not to eat one marshmallow right now, so that they’d get two marshmallows in fifteen minutes.

Mishel’s studies got so much attention because they suggested that self-control correlates with SO MANY good things: high grades, better jobs, better health, etc.

And, they suggested that self-control is relatively stable. Some studies suggested that the marshmallow test, given at to a child at age five, could offer insights into their lives decades later.

Now, this research pool includes lots of complexity.

If, for instance, you saw Dr. Mishel at our 2015 conference in Boston, you know that trustworthiness matters.

Children waited for the 2nd marshmallow more often if they had reason to believe that the experimenter would actually follow through on their commitments. (Smart kids!)

So, do other factors matter?

The Power of Culture

A research team in Japan, led by Kaichi Yanaoka, wondered if cultural factors might shape self control.

So, for instance, in Japan waiting for food gets cultural priority — much more so than in the United States (where Mishel did his research).

But, Japanese culture does not emphasize waiting to open gifts as much as families in the US often do.

For instance, as Yanaoka explains in this study, Japanese parents often leave gifts for their children, with no cultural expectation that the children should wait to open them.

So, do these cultural differences shape performance on the marshmallow test?

Hypothesis. Data.

Based on these cultural norms, team Yanaoka hypothesized that children from the US would be better at waiting to open gifts, but worse at waiting to eat marshmallows, than their Japanese counterparts.

Because research requires precision, this study includes LOTS of details. (For instance, the researchers checked to be sure that the Japanese children had eaten marshmallows before, so they knew what temptation they were resisting.)

But the overall design was quite simple. In the US and Japan, children waited either to eat marshmallows, or to open gifts. Researchers followed a simple script:

Now it’s gift time! You have a choice for your gift today. You can either have this one gift to open right now, or if you wait for me to get more gifts from the other room, you can have two gifts to open instead. […]

Stay right there in that chair and I’ll leave this right here, and if you haven’t opened it […] before I get back, you can two to open instead.

Of course, for the children getting marshmallows, the script said “marshmallow” and “eat” rather than “gift” and “open.”

So, what did the researchers find?

Sure enough, cultural expectations shape self control.

In this case, Japanese children waited for the second marshmallow (median time: 15 minutes) much longer than US children (median time: 3.66 minutes).

But, US children waited to open the gift (median wait time: 14.54 minutes) longer than Japanese children (median time: 4.62 minutes).

When you look at the graphs, you’ll be impressed by the precise degree to which cultural expectations reverse wait times.

The Big Picture

So, what do we do with this information?

I think Yanaoka’s study offers us a specific reminder, and a general reminder.

Specifically, this study lets us know that self-control is NOT one monolithic, unchangeable thing.

Self-control varies across people and cultures. Yes, self-control matters; but, performance on one test — even a test with marshmallows — doesn’t tell us everything we need to know.

Generally, this study reminds us that culture always matters.

So, teachers should indeed welcome advice that experts offer us about — say — adolescence. But, that advice always includes cultural constraints. Adolescence, after all, differs in Denver, Kyoto, Sao Paolo, Reykjavik, and Gaborone.

So too cultural norms around stress. And feedback. And appropriate relationships between adults and students. Yes, and self-control.

No advice — not even research-based advice — gives us absolute guidance across all cultural norms.

Yanaoka, K., Michaelson, L. E., Guild, R. M., Dostart, G., Yonehiro, J., Saito, S., & Munakata, Y. (2022). Cultures crossing: the power of habit in delaying gratification. Psychological Science, 33(7), 1172-1181.

From Stressed to Resilient by Deborah Gilboa
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD
September 20, 2022

From Stressed to Resilient by Deborah Gilboa

Read More

Our lives are filled with change and all change is stressful whether that change is good or bad. Whether stress takes a toll on our well-being or whether we use that stress to build resilience is determined partly by a set of skills that need to be practiced and refined. In From Stressed to Resilient: The Guide to Handle More and Feel it Less, Deborah Gilboa (Dr. G) has written an easy-to-follow workbook that enables the reader to build resilience.

The book is a dynamic, personalized instruction book for building and working on our resilience. It begins by putting forward a particular mindset toward stress: feelings of stress are our brains’ way of interpreting change; stress is an integral part of living and adapting. The goal of the book is not to reduce stress but to transform how we prepare for and react to feelings of stress, utilizing stress to make us strong. The early chapters help us understand the landscape of our own beliefs and reactions to stress and where some of the opportunities for social-emotional development are in our lives. The useful questionaries guide this process helping us determine what should be a priority when reading the book. But don’t take these questionaries as determinative of who you are. They take stock of you at the moment, so I found it useful to return to them regularly.

The remainder of the book is a series of exercises for which there is a useful set of accompanying PDFs and online resources. These subsequent eight sections target specific skills leading to resilience: building connections, setting boundaries, being open to change, managing discomfort, setting goals, finding options, taking action, and persevering. Each of these has multiple practices and avenues for development giving you ownership of your own growth.

For those of us that feel a sense of “just tell me what to do,” this book walks you through steps in an easy-to-follow way and the author’s humor and forthright analysis allow you to put all your energy into the necessary self-reflection the book invites. The process is deceptively simple but enables the reader to learn and grow in small measurable steps. This is not the type of book that you read cover to cover but you read it strategically, guided by the information in the early chapters but also by our changing life goals. I also often repeated the useful exercises as I saw fit and reread old responses to gain insight into my development. While some of the books I have reviewed here are research-heavy and academic theory-laden, this is truly a book for guided self-improvement.

I advise integrating the book somehow into your daily routine while you work through it. I found it useful to integrate the reflective exercises into my morning routine right after I woke. These positioned me well to frame learning from the previous day and reframe the stresses present in my mind when I woke. Each section also has some practices to follow throughout the day from questions to ask others in conversations to imagining contingency plans or rescheduling missed opportunities. These practices then can frame the day; small goals that bring awareness to daily work and personal practice. Overall, the book will help you live life a little more mindfully and with purpose.

But the book does not end with you. The book is entirely adaptable for a variety of contexts, and I could easily see these exercises being pulled out for classroom practice, college student self-reflection, and teacher professional development, I even found it fun to practice some of the exercises with friends and family. The fact that they are already in worksheet format also makes it easy to scale them up for more than one person.

This book is not an intellectually heavy lift, and thank goodness, because we don’t need to add more to our plate when we are trying to self-improve. The book is not an added challenge but facilitates the process of building a stronger more resilient version of yourself.

 

Translating Research to the Classroom: the Case of Discovery Learning
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 18, 2022

Translating Research to the Classroom: the Case of Discovery Learning

Read More

Here at Learning and the Brain, we want teachers and students to benefit from research. Obviously.

When psychologists discover important findings about the mind, when neuroscientists investigate the function of the brain, schools might well benefit.

Let’s start making connections!

At the same time, that hopeful vision requires care and caution. For instance, research (typically) operates in very specialized conditions: conditions that don’t really match most classrooms.

How can we accomplish our goal (applying research to the classroom) without making terrible mistakes (mis-applying research to the classroom)?

A Case in Point

Today’s post has been inspired by this study, by researchers Angela Brunstein, Shawn Betts, and John R. Anderson.

It’s compelling title: “Practice Enables Successful Learning under Minimal Guidance.”

Now, few debates in education generate as much heat as this one.

Many teachers think that — because we’re the experts in the room, and because working memory is so small — teachers should explain ideas carefully and structure practice incrementally.

Let’s call this approach “high-structure pedagogy” (although it’s probably better known as “direct instruction”).

Other teachers think that — because learners must create knowledge in order to understand and remember it — teachers should stand back and leave room for adventure, error, discovery, and ultimate understanding.

Let’s call this approach “low-structure pedagogy” (although it has LOTS of other names: “constructivism,” “project/problem-based learning,” “minimal guidance learning,” and so forth).

How can we apply the Brunstein study to this debate? What do we DO with its conclusions in our classrooms?

If you’re on the low structure team, you may assume the study provides the final word in this debate. What could be clearer? “Practice enables successful learning under minimal guidance” — research says so!

If you’re on the high structure team, you may assume it is obviously flawed, and look to reject its foolish conclusions.

Let me offer some other suggestions…

Early Steps

In everyday speech, the word “bias” has a bad reputation. In the world of science, however, we use the word slightly differently.

We all have biases; that is, we all have perspectives and opinions and experiences. Our goal is not so much to get rid of biases, but to recognize them — and recognize the ways they might distort our perceptions.

So, a good early step in applying research to our work: fess up to our own prior beliefs.

Many (most?) teachers do have an opinion in this high-structure vs. low-structure debate. Many have emphatic opinions. We should acknowledge our opinions frankly. (I’ll tell you my own opinion at the end of this post.)

Having taken this first vital step, let it shape your approach to the research. Specifically, try — at least temporarily — to convince yourself to change your mind.

That is: if you believe in low-structure pedagogy, look hard for the flaws in this study that seems to champion low-structure pedagogy. (BTW: all studies have flaws.)

If your biases tend you to high-structure pedagogy, try to find this study’s strengths.

Swim against your own tide.

Why? Because you will read the study more carefully — and therefore will likely arrive at conclusions that benefit your students more.

Gathering Momentum

Now that you have a goal — “change my own mind” — look at the study to answer two questions:

First: who was in the study?

Second: what, exactly, did they do?

You should probably be more persuaded by studies where…

First: …the study’s participants resemble your students and your cultural context, and

Second: …the participants did something that sensibly resembles your own possible teaching practice.

So, in this case: the participants were undergraduates at Carnegie Mellon University.

If you teach undergraduates at a highly selective university — the Google tells me that CMU currently admits 14% of their applicants — then this study’s conclusions might help you.

However, if you teach 3rd graders, or if you teach at any school with open admission, those conclusions just might not offer useful guidance.

After all, high-powered college students might succeed at “minimal guidance” learning because they already know a lot, and because they’re really good at school. (How do we know? Because they got into CMU.)

What about our second question? What exactly did the participants do?

In this study, participants used a computer tutor to solve algebra-ish math problems. (The description here gets VERY technical; you can think of the problems a proto-Kendoku, with algebra.)

What about the guidance they got? How “minimal” was it?

Getting the Definition Just Right

At this point, Brunstein’s study reminds us of an essential point.

When teachers talk about educational practice, we use handy shorthand phrases to capture big ideas.

Metacognition. Mindfulness. Problem-based learning.

However, each of those words and phrases could be used to describe widely different practices.

Before we can know if this study about “minimal guidance” applies to our students, we have to know exactly what these researchers did that they’re calling minimal guidance.

Team Brunstein says exactly this. They see discovery learning and direct instruction not as two different things, but as ends of a continuum:

“No learning experience is pure: students given direct instruction often find themselves struggling to discover what the teacher means, and all discovery situations involve some minimal amount of guidance.”

In this case, “minimal guidance” involved varying degrees of verbal and written instructions.

This study concludes that under very specific circumstances, a particular blend of structure and discovery fosters learning.

So, yes, in some “minimal guidance” circumstances, students learned — and practice time helped.

However — and this is a big “however”:

In one part of the study, 50% of the students at the extreme “discovery” end of the spectrum quit the study. Another 25% of them went so slowly that they didn’t finish the assignment.

In other words: this study in no way suggests that all kinds of minimal guidance/discovery/PBL learning are always a good idea.

The “just right” blend helped: perhaps we can recreate that blend. But the wrong blend — “extreme discovery” — brought learning to a standstill.

Final Thoughts

First: when using research to shape classroom practice, it helps to look at specific studies.

AND it helps to look at groups of studies.

Long-time readers know that I really like both scite.ai and connectedpapers.com. If you go to those websites and put in the name of Brunstein’s study, you’ll see what MANY other scholars have found when they looked at the same specific question about minimal guidance. (Try it — you’ll like it!)

Second: I promised to tell you my own opinion about the low- vs. high-structure debate. My answer is: I think it’s the wrong question.

Because of working memory limitations, I do think that teachers should provide high structure during early stages of studying a topic.

And, for a variety of reasons, I think we should gradually transition to lower-structure pedagogies as students learn more and more.

That is:

We should use high-structure pedagogy with novices, who are early in schema formation.

And, we should use low-structure pedagogy with experts, who are later in the process of schema formation.

The question is not “which pedagogy to use?”

The better question is: “how can we identify stages along the process of students’ schema development, so we know when and how to transition our teaching.”

Research into that question is still very much in the early phases.

Brunstein, A., Betts, S., & Anderson, J. R. (2009). Practice enables successful learning under minimal guidance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 790.

Have You Heard of…”Prospective Memory”? What It Is, Why Teachers Should Notice
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 15, 2022

Have You Heard of…”Prospective Memory”? What It Is, Why Teachers Should Notice

Read More

Most of the time, we remember things experienced in the past:

My most recent birthday

A childhood vacation

An obscure factual tidbit from the news

However, we also spend some time remembering the future:

An errand to complete on the way home from school

A phone call I have to make this evening

A coffee date this weekend

When we remember the future, we’re using our prospective memory.

Here’s why this distinction matters:

Schools focus primarily on remembering the past: the topic or formula students learned last week, class rules, concepts and skills from a previous unit.

We also spend a fair amount of time relying on prospective memory.

Students remember the third step of the instructions while they do the first. That’s prospective memory.

Teachers remember an announcement that we should make at the end of class. That’s prospective memory.

What can research tell us about this under-discussed cognitive capacity? And, does any research provide practical classroom advice?

Start with the Basics

We know (all too well) that remembering the past can be difficult. After all, students regularly forget the ideas they seemed to know so well just last week. (Let’s admit it: we do too.)

Perhaps we’re not surprised to learn, therefore, that prospective memory creates cognitive strain. Simply put: we don’t remember the future very well either.

Have you ever driven home and forgotten to pick up milk on the way?

Have your students ever forgotten the 3rd instruction while working on the first?

Yup: we struggle to complete prospective memory tasks.

I myself think of this problem as (basically) working memory overload.

After all, working memory selects, HOLDS, reorganizes, and combines information from multiple sources.

Prospective memory requires us to HOLD that information for a long period of time — and thus strains working memory.

Simply put: when we ask students to use prospective memory, we increase working memory load and thereby make learning harder.

Sound familiar?

Problems Require Solutions

Teachers are a practical lot. Once we learn about a problem, we’d like a solution.

Happily, we have some steps to follow.

Step #1: recognize the problem. 

If I tell my students five steps to follow, I’m creating a prospective memory problem. They must remember to do all five steps in the future.

Once I recognize the prospective memory load inherent in this task, now I know to change something.

Step #2: rely on long-term memory.

If students have routines in long-term memory, they don’t need to HOLD them in working memory.

So, if I always stop at the grocery store as I drive home on Wednesday, I’m much less likely to forget that errand this upcoming Wednesday. It’s part of my routine.

If students always start by circling the verbs in a sentence, they’re much less likely to be stumped by instructions that begin with that task.

Simply put: routines reduces prospective memory load.

Step #3: Recent Research

Today’s blog post was inspired by a recent study about prospective memory, led by Dawa Dupont. Specifically, the study wondered if we can reduce prospective memory load by writing down information we will need in the future. (IMPORTANT NOTE: I’m oversimplifying here — I’ll come back later to the definition of “writing down.”)

This three-part study came up with several answers.

Answer #1: YES. When we write down important information, doing so reduces prospective memory load. Students remember it better.

Answer #2: SURPRISE: writing down important information helps us process less important information as well.

By reducing prospective memory (working memory) load, we help both complex and simple cognitive processes.

Answer #3: Re-SURPRISE: when students can’t write down important information, this limitation harms recall of important info more than recall of less important info.

In other words: in prospective memory, we often get priorities wrong.

All these answers lead to a helpfully straightforward solution to prospective memory problems: let students write stuff down.

That is: don’t just describe five instructions. Have students write them down. (Or, give them a written copy.)

Don’t try to remember the announcement at the end of class. Write in your lesson plan the announcement you need to make.

Simply put: offload prospective memory burdens onto paper — or some other technology reminder.

Important Definitions

I said above that I was oversimplifying when I said “write stuff down.” Let me now unpack a bit more complexity.

In this study, participants played a simple video game.

In some versions, players could mark objects in a special way. This marking reminded players what to do with those objects in the future.

In other versions of the game, players couldn’t create those reminder marks.

Those special markings were, in effect, a technology strategy for “offloading” prospective memory. Players didn’t have to remember “move this one to the left” in the future. They had already put in a reminder marker to do so.

In other words, players didn’t exactly “write stuff down.” They created a kind of technology reminder.

However — this is important — the first sentence of this study suggests that “writing stuff down” and “creating a kind of technology reminder” serve the same prospective memory function:

Individuals have the option of remembering delayed intentions by storing them in internal memory or offloading them to an external store such as a diary or smartphone alert.

Researchers didn’t study the “written diary/calendar” option here, but the logic is very much the same.

Even More Important Definitions

I’m being quite transparent about these definitions because I worry that other sources are extrapolating too far.

I found Dupont’s study by following this headline: “Using smartphones could help improve memory skills.”

Um, what?

If students use their cellphones to write down their homework, or take pictures of instructions I’ve written on the board, or do some other task-focused activity, doing so could reduce prospective memory load.

But:

First, that’s not at all the same thing as “improving memory skills,” and

Second, having cellphones handy in class can produces all sorts of other distractions. I mean, are students honestly using cellphones for “task-focused activities”?

True confession: more often than not, my students aren’t using cellphones for good. (I had one student answer his phone in class. No, really.)

So, I think Dupont’s study supports cellphone use in class only in narrowly defined ways. In no way does it generally support the idea that cellphones are good because they “improve memory skills.”

TL;DR

Prospective memory allows us to remember the future (yay). And, it creates working memory load (boo).

We can reduce that load by a) recognizing the problem, b) developing classroom routines, and c) creating reminders — written or technological — to offload those prospective memory burdens.

Anyone who says this research broadly supports cellphone use in classrooms is — in my view — dramatically misrepresenting its conclusions.

Dupont, D., Zhu, Q., & Gilbert, S. J. (2022). Value-based routing of delayed intentions into brain-based versus external memory stores. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Older posts
Newer posts