June 2023 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content

Monthly Archives: June 2023

How Teaching Happens by Paul Paul Kirschner, Carl Hendrick, and Jim Heal
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD
June 26, 2023

How Teaching Happens by Paul Paul Kirschner, Carl Hendrick, and Jim Heal

Read More

Screen Shot 2023-06-26 at 6.38.37 PMWho would have thought that a book about teaching could begin with a discussion of the gore of public amputations in the 19th century and blood-stiffened frocks that could stand on their own? But this is the perfect beginning for a book that drives home the point that good teaching does not always look like we expect. It’s not all about performance, and it’s not always about students appearing to be engaged in tasks. Effective learning and effective teaching are not always what we see in the movies or find the most entertaining. Effective teaching is nuanced and dynamic.

From the authors of How Learning Happens, Paul A. Kirschner, Carl Hendrick and now with Jim Heal, comes this reflective anthology of How Teaching Happens: Seminal Works in Teaching and Teacher Effectiveness and What They Mean in Practice. This book is an accessible version of an anthology of 30 research articles and some books that represent the most significant findings and discussions in the field of education over the last few decades. It is a collection of efforts to show us some light toward effective education while helping us avoid educational malpractice.

The book is divided into six sections:

  • What makes effective teachers?
  • What is important in designing instruction and curriculum?
  • What is the foundation of effective teaching techniques and frames of mind about teaching?
  • What is the importance of content knowledge and domain specific pedagogical practice?
  • How do effective teachers interact in the complex nuanced space of the classroom?
  • How to assess learning effectively and ineffectively?

The authors do not mince words and give us refreshing honesty and enjoyable framing. The book wraps up with an important discussion of what each teacher needs to know – but does not – and a description of the “sorry state” of teacher training in the United States, showing us opportunities on the path ahead.

This is not just an anthology of articles, however. It is an expertly crafted teaching tool that scaffolds your exploration of these seminal works and their related content, giving readers access to the content of these inspiring ideas in education without bogging down the reader with overly pretentious, theory-laden, and “researchy” language. In essence, its goal is to communicate the main points of these influential research articles and perspectives, making it easy to understand and efficiently reference. It is also a useful doorway into the original publications as it introduces the main points and then refers the reader to the original article for a deeper dive.

The structure of each chapter enables the reader to quickly access the information at a level that is most useful to satisfying their reading goals. Each chapter begins by addressing why one should be concerned about the topics covered. It does an excellent job of setting up examples that pique the reader’s curiosity and get them engaged. Then the original abstract of the article being addressed is presented. Then the chapter translates the theory, findings, and methods from the original article into a quick, easily accessible format. It boils the whole thing down to what you need to know. This is then followed by excellent suggestions for translation into the classroom that are presented in a brief outline. The suggested resources throughout the book are easily accessible via QR codes and links that allow you to quickly grab your phone and prep a podcast or additional reading for later.

This is an excellent textbook for new teachers, but it is also a great book for experienced teachers, school leaders, and education researchers to recenter thinking on what is important in teaching. As the authors point out, it is only the tip of the iceberg. But in my opinion, it is a very solid foundation that can be the start of a journey of exploration. This book is the necessary sequel to How Learning Happens. Now that we see how learning happens, how does being an effective teacher happen? The reader will find themselves reflecting on their practice, values, and beliefs that drive their pedagogy and be introduced to underappreciated ways of thinking. The authors do a consummate job of inviting and preparing the reader to continue their developmental journey to fulfill their goal of being leaders, educators, and lifelong learners.

Oops, Twitter Did It Again: Creativity and the “Positive Manifold”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
June 20, 2023

Oops, Twitter Did It Again: Creativity and the “Positive Manifold”

Read More

I’ve written before that edu-Twitter can be a great help to teachers. I myself regularly learn about fascinating research, and practical teaching applications, from the wise accounts I follow.

Child sitting on a stool creates fantastic color patterns in the air

Of course, Twitter is also notorious for its edu-nonsense. (No claim about learning styles is too outlandish for the little blue bird.)

I ran across a tweet thread recently that captured this complexity; it strikes me as a healthy reminder of Twitter’s features and foibles.

Here’s the story…

Extraordinary Creativity

A well-known tweep (with 10s of thousands of followers) recently recounted the following story:

An engineer who specialized in designing racing-car engines saw a contest to devise an advertising slogan.*

On a whim, he decided to enter. Drawing on principles from engine design, he conjured up an out-of-left-field slogan that captured public imagination and made the product a best seller.

Now a newly minted ad-executive, this engineer embodies the “positive manifold” as described by psychologist Charles Spearman.

In brief, the “positive manifold” suggests that the strengths of cognitive abilities are correlated; so, skill at race-car design correlates with skill at devising advertising slogans.

In other words, the tweep writes, “expertise gained through specialization is transferrable.”

This story captures several themes beloved by twitter – especially the joyous flexibility of creativity. Skill at anything, in this school of thought, benefits skill at anything else – because “expertise gained through specialization is transferrable.”

When applied to schooling, this argument suggests that students don’t need to learn any particular stuff.

As long as students are learning something, the expertise they gain by learning that something will help them everywhere else. (Again: expertise is transferrable.)

Early Doubts

This approach to creativity has lots of appeal. However, research has tended to contradict it.

Here’s why:

The human mind includes several alarming cognitive bottlenecks.

On the one hand, our long-term memory is functionally infinite. We can know and remember an astonishingly large amount of stuff – both skills and procedures.

On the other hand, the part of the mind that combines pieces in new ways is alarmingly small.

This cognitive function, called “working memory,” just doesn’t have much space.

For instance:

If I ask you to put FIVE random words into alphabetical order in your head, you can probably do so easily enough.

If, however, I ask you to put TEN random words into alphabetical order, your working memory will start smoking and (temporarily) explode.

Creativity, of course, requires combining pieces in a new order – that is: it requires working memory.

Unless someone has organized and consolidated a VAST amount of information in long-term memory, it will be difficult to execute this highly demanding working memory task.

In other words: this story about an engineer-turned-ad-executive sounded really unlikely.

Contra the tweep’s claims, expertise gained through specialization is NOT transferrable to another specialty. Knowing a great deal about racing-car engines almost certainly doesn’t help create catchy advertising slogans.

Not So Fast

Cognitive scientists generally agree that expertise can’t be transferred, and that creativity requires lots of expert background knowledge.

But remember: the tweep has cited Spearman’s “positive manifold.”

In fact, he notes that a well-known Learning and the Brain speaker has written about the positive manifold.**

If my own organization is touting this concept, surely I should value its application.

Now I have an embarrased confession:

I’ve never even heard of the “positive manifold.”

Given my alarming ignorance, perhaps I should simply admit my prior beliefs about transfer and creativity were wrong.

Instead, I looked up “positive manifold.”

Turns out: the positive manifold has NOTHING TO DO with transfer of expertise.

Spearman found that various measures of intelligence correlate with one another. People who study intelligence write about “g” — a “general intelligence” — because the various subscales on intelligence correlate.

Of course, that finding does not remotely suggest that expertise in race cars correlates with (or causes) expertise with advertising. Spearman never said any such thing.

He was investingating the NARROW topic of intelligence testing, not the BROAD question of creativity and transfer.

But wait: what about that Learning and the Brain speaker?

Sure enough, his book devotes about a page and a half to “positive manifold.” Those pages explain that various measures of intelligence correlate — and says nothing whatsoever about creativity, or about transfer of expertise.

Savor the Irony

Here’s the larger perspective: someone who clearly has Twitter expertise (10s of thousands of followers) claims to have another kind of expertise: expertise in creativity and psychology research.

However, his first kind of expertise does not transfer to the second kind of expertise. He doesn’t know enough about psychology to know how little he knows. (This mistake might sound like Dunning-Kruger to you…)

And so, when he writes that “expertise gained through specialization is transferrable,” we should notice that:

First: he’s almost certainly wrong, and

Second: his own tweet thread is an example of his very wrongness. His expertise did not transfer.

I should note, by the way, that I haven’t investigated the story about the engineer. It’s possible, I suppose, that lightning struck in this one case.

However, teachers and school leaders should absolutely NOT act as if this one anecdote matters for education or curriculum design.

And this episode should remind us: Twitter can offer intriguing suggestions…but we should always investigate them skeptically.

* As is typical on this blog, I’m not identifying the tweet I’m criticizing. My goal is not to name/shame an individual, but to raise alarms about common practices. This tweet is just one example.

** Again: I’m being vague so as not to identify the tweet.

 

Have I Been Spectacularly Wrong for Years, Part 2 [Removed 6/14/23]
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
June 14, 2023

Have I Been Spectacularly Wrong for Years, Part 2 [Removed 6/14/23]

Read More

On Sunday of this week, I published my response to my interview with Dr. Morgan Polikoff.

When I shared it with him, he responded that I had misrepresented his position.

I try hard never to misrepresent another’s position — especially when I disagree with it. For that reason, I have removed the post.

The Best Place to Study…Depends on the Goal
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
June 05, 2023

The Best Place to Study…Depends on the Goal

Read More

A wise friend recently asked a question that goes something like this:

Research shows that new memories connect to the places where they’re formed.

So: if I study geometry in the library, I’ll do better on a geometry test taken in the library than on the same test taken in a nearby classroom.

Why? Because my understanding of geometry is somehow connected to this particular place. (Researchers call this “context-dependent learning.”)

So, here’s the question:

Doesn’t it make sense for students to study in the room where they will ultimately take the test?

This question, it seems to me, highlights two important truths about the intersection of research and education.

Let’s explore:

Truth #1:

Psychology researchers discover ALL SORTS of useful information about learning (and therefore about teaching).

So, indeed, we do have a good research pool showing that we remember more of a topic in the place where we studied it. (Say: geometry in the library.)

That’s really helpful to know!

If you’re interested in this story, check out How We Learn by Benedict Carey. He’s a science writer for the New York Times, and has a story-teller’s knack for making even dry material fascinating.

In this case, the story begins with scuba-diving, so it’s exciting all on its own.

Of course, the good research news doesn’t stop there. For example:

We’ve got lots of good research (say, from Dr. Barbara Fenesi) suggesting that mid-lecture exercise breaks benefit learning.

Also: we’ve got research (say, from Dr. Faria Sana) showing that off-task laptop use distracts the laptop user. Even worse, it distracts the people sitting behind the off-tasker!

This list could go on for pages.

Each of these research pools might result in practical school-keeping suggestions:

Students should study in the room where they take the exam!

Classes should stop for exercise breaks!!

Schools should forbid laptops!!!

And so forth.

So, again: Truth #1 is that psychology research has LOTS of potentially useful information for teachers.

I promised that my friend’s question would prompt two truths. So, here’s the second…

Truth #2:

Psychology researchers and teachers think about similar questions in very different ways.

For that reason, teachers should KNOW about psychology research, but shouldn’t necessarily DO what research implies.

Let’s take these examples one at a time.

Yes, because of “context dependent learning,” students will do better on tests if they study in the room where the test will be held.

But as a teacher, I don’t want my students to know the material for the test. I want them to KNOW THE MATERIAL, full stop.

Young woman sitting on a brightly lit staircase working on a computer

For instance: when my students learn about comedy and tragedy, I want them to write good papers about Macbeth and Fences.

But — MUCH more important – I want them to think about comedy and tragedy at unexpected times in the future.

If you watched the 3rd episode of “Last of Us,” you know that it fundamentally rewrites the basic rules of comedy. I didn’t anticipate that connection when I taught my students about comedy and tragedy…but I certainly hope that they make it spontaneously.

And – crucially – I hope they make the connection somewhere other than our classroom. I don’t want their knowledge to be bound up in one context; I want their knowledge to be gloriously flexible.

So, my advice to my friend is: do NOT have students study where they will take the test. Have students study in many different places so that their knowledge doesn’t become dependent on only one context.

The Bigger Picture

As you can see, the practical teaching advice implied by research doesn’t always make actual classroom sense. (In fact, teachers often assume that researchers are offering advice; often, they’re simply answering research questions.)

Let’s keep going with that idea.

Should we interrupt class for exercise breaks? Fenesi’s research implies we should.

Well, maybe.

When I teach my acting classes, my students are already up and moving. What additional benefit would exercise provide?

If I taught in a business school, or a divinity school, or a meditation retreat, it’s not obvious that exercise fits the appropriate classroom vibe.

Teachers benefit from knowing about Fenesi’s exercise research, but we should apply it flexibly.

Well, surely we should ban laptops; Sana’s research is regularly cited to make that case.

Again: maybe.

If I taught in a large lecture hall and had no way to control students’ laptop use, I’d certainly consider doing so. But:

Professors can explain the perils of laptop multitasking, and ask TAs to keep an eye out for potential distractors. (A friend of mine does just this.)

In my own classroom, it’s relatively easy to see who is or isn’t multitasking; why forbid a useful tool if I don’t have to?

Here again, I’m glad that Sana’s research offers us guidance, but we have to think for ourselves as we apply it to the classroom.

TL;DR

Q: Should students study in the room where they will take the test?

A: Like so much “research-based teaching advice,” this idea seems like a tempting application of a simple research finding.

BUT, we always have to think beyond these findings to understand how research can best guide our classroom practice.

Carey, B. (2015). How we learn: the surprising truth about when, where, and why it happens. Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Fenesi, B., Lucibello, K., Kim, J. A., & Heisz, J. J. (2018). Sweat so you don’t forget: Exercise breaks during a university lecture increase on-task attention and learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 261-269.

Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24-31.