September 2023 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content

Monthly Archives: September 2023

“Embodied Cognition” in Action: Using Gestures to Teach Science
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 26, 2023

“Embodied Cognition” in Action: Using Gestures to Teach Science

Read More

Here’s a topic that has gotten lots of enthusiastic attention in recent years: embodied cognition.

As the name suggests, that phrase means — basically — “thinking with your body, not just your mind.”

Because your brain is a part of your body (it is, in fact, physically attached to your body), the concept makes rough-and-ready sense.

In at least two ways, this perspective has well-established research support.

First, physical fitness improves cognition — at least, up to a point.

We don’t need to be Olympic athletes to learn chemistry.

But if I’m conspicuously out of shape, the related health detriments harm my brain just as they harm my lungs; that harm makes learning harder. (If you want to get your neuroscience geek on, look up “brain-derived neurotrophic factor.”)

Second, some degree of physical movement during class moderates students’ alertness levels.

If my students are nodding off or bouncing giddily, I’ll get them up on their feet for a bit to get the blood moving (or to burn off some of that excess energy).

In these ways, the body’s physical state obviously matters for cognition.

And yet, over the years, I’ve had two basic concerns about broader claims within this field. Let me try to explain…

Better Definitions, Please

Scientific conclusions typically require precise measurements; precise measurements require precise defintions.

That is: I can tell you that this rock weighs more than that rock because I can measure it (on my scale) according to well-defined measurements (pounds or kilos).

But: if I want to say that this student is paying more attention than that student, I need a really good definition of attention, and a way to measure it. “This student demonstrates 6 attention units, whereas that one demonstrates only 4.”

Picture of a student doing acrobatic movement in the classroom while carrying backpack with doodles on the blackboard

Sadly, the concept of “embodied cognition” invites definitional muddle.

For instance: is mindful meditation “embodied cognition”? (It often includes a focus on the body.)

More broadly, here’s Wikipedia’s entry on embodied cognition. I’m not gonna lie; I get lost really quickly when I read that entry.

So, problem #1: I don’t always understand exactly what the claims about embodied cognition really are.

More Research, Please

I think I do understand one of the claims under the “embodied cognition” umbrella. I think the claim is:

Adding the right gestures to teaching helps students learn.

That is: using gestures (“embodied”) helps students think and learn (“cognition”).

A recent study in Australia pursued just this line of inquiry.

In this study, 33 students (aged 12-14) learned about Brownian motion.

Half of them saw a typical lesson — a powerpoint presentation, group discussion, worksheets — taught by an experienced teacher.

The other half saw the same lesson (powerpoint presentation, etc.) with additional, carefully designed hand gestures.

By the way, the teacher used the hand getures, and encouraged the students to do so as well.

Two days later, the students who saw and used the meaningful gestures (a.k.a., “iconic” gestures) scored a lot higher on a simple quiz. (For stats folks, the Cohen’s d was 0.98, which is really big!)

Now, I admit to some concerns about this study:

33 is a very modest sample size.

“2 days later” isn’t really learning.

Most important: there is no “active control group.”

That is: the researchers didn’t compare iconic gestures with another new strategy. Instead, they compared gestures to “business as usual.”

“Business as usual” isn’t often a very persuasive control group; after all, the novelty might explain the effect.

These concerns aside, I do think the study — combined with other similar studies — gives us some reason to think that the right gestures just might help students learn better.

I was especially glad to see an emphasis on students’ use of the gestures. This variable hasn’t gotten much attention in other studies I’ve seen, so I’m encouraged to see it getting greater visibility.

Lingering Questions

And yet, I STILL want more research. Here’s why:

Problem #2: I don’t think we have nearly enough research (yet) to establish useful principles for instructive gestures.

In other words: these gestures probably helped 13-year-olds learn about states of matter.

But: what sorts of gestures can help what ages learn about what topics?

Specifically:

If I want my students to know the difference between “comedy” and “tragedy” (and I do!), can gestures help with those concepts? How should I think about desiging those gestures?

What sorts of topics in a history class would benefit from gestures?

Should foreign language teachers have students make specific gestures — say — when they learn different declensions? When they learn masculine or feminine nouns?

I’m not trying to be difficult or grouchy when I ask these questions. I’m trying to understand how seeming success in this one case could be translated to other topics, other disciplines, and other age groups.

Growing Concerns

More broadly, I worry that “iconic gestures/embodied cognition” will become the Next Thing We’re All Talking About.

Teachers will get instruction about Iconic Gestures, be required to use them, and be evaluated on their use … even though we don’t have even basic guidelines on how to create or use them. (At least, as far as I know.)

For instance: the topic of Brownian motion was chosen, in part, because it is “susceptible to being taught using specific gesticulation.”

What about topics that aren’t obviously susceptible?

In fact, if you look at the gestures used during the lesson, they don’t seem too far off from the sorts of gestures that teachers might make spontaneously.

Are “iconic gestures” simply “the sorts of gestures we’d use anyway, but formally planned, scripted, practiced, and repeated by students”?

If yes, does the entire topic of iconic gestures change from “revolutionary” to “a modest technical update to something we’re doing anyway”?

I’m entirely open to the possibility that gestures (“embodied”) can help students learn (“cognition”) … but we need more research to know for sure.

TL;DR

Because the brain is in the body, the body’s physical state obviously matters for learning.

This recent study from Australia (and others) suggest that well crafted hand gestures can help students learn some concepts.

However, the principles that guide us in the creation and use of those hand gestures are not yet well mapped. So: we just don’t know how widely this technique might benefit teachers, schools, and students.

If someone insists you start using gestures because “research in embodied cognition says you must!”, ask to see the specific study.

Bentley, B., Walters, K., & Yates, G. C. (2023). Using iconic hand gestures in teaching a year 8 science lesson. Applied Cognitive Psychology.

Why We Forget and How to Remember Better by Dr. Andrew E. Budson & Dr. Elizabeth A. Kensinger
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD
September 19, 2023

Why We Forget and How to Remember Better by Dr. Andrew E. Budson & Dr. Elizabeth A. Kensinger

Read More

2940176833065_p0_v2_s1200x630Why We Forget and How to Remember Better by Dr. Andrew E. Budson and Dr. Elizabeth A. Kensinger is a captivating research driven exploration of the intricate workings of human memory. In this comprehensive book, the authors delve into the latest scientific insights about memory, making this complex topic accessible and relevant to college students, teachers, and a valuable review and update for researchers.

 

The book begins by addressing the fundamental questions that haunt our understanding of memory. Why do we forget? How can we be certain about our memories? Why do we struggle to recall names and important information when we need them the most? Through their extensive experience, Budson and Kensinger provide insightful answers and guide readers on a journey to understand and enhance their memory.

The book challenges common beliefs by revealing that memory’s primary function goes beyond recalling details from the past; it’s a complex web of abilities waiting to be explored. Also, many of us have heard the terms working memory, procedural memory, short term memory, muscle memory etc.; this book and its awesome illustrations help you clarify and differentiate these and other concepts.

As readers delve into the pages, they gain valuable insights into how memories are formed, stored, and retrieved during daily life. What’s more, the book equips readers with the power to take ownership and control of their memory abilities, offering strategies to remember what matters most and forget what’s less relevant. It goes further, offering practical tips for effective study techniques, a boon for students gearing up for exams. But that’s not all. “Why We Forget and How to Remember Better” doesn’t just stop at enhancing memory for practical tasks. It teaches readers how to remember names, passwords, and even lengthy information like 50 digit numbers, unlocking a world of superhuman enhanced memory skills. It really shows you how to make the most of what you got.

The book discusses the controversial and fascinating area of memory by exploring the fine line between true and false memories, providing readers with tools to navigate the terrain of memory accuracy with confidence.  The narrative also delves into the ever-evolving nature of memory, highlighting how it develops in normal aging and various conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, depression, anxiety, PTSD, ADHD, and the unique impact of COVID-related brain fog.

As the story unfolds, readers discover the intriguing interplay between external factors and memory. It explores how exercise, nutrition, psychedelics, alcohol, cannabis, sleep, mindfulness, and music can all influence the way we remember, emphasizing the vital connection between lifestyle choices and memory health. We get information helping us separate the myths and marketing hype from what has been supported by the science and where there are still questions and possibilities.

While to book uses technical language, the narrative and illustrations makes this language accessible. This is important because the oversimplification of many science-based books for the layperson can easily simplify to the point of generating new myths. But this book is very careful, and you will discover your own misconceptions or at least learn some useful support for dispelling myths of friends, students, and family.

Advice from the authors applies the concepts they teach throughout the book into the construction of the book as a learning resource. To assist readers in recalling the book’s key themes, the authors have applied principles from the science of learning. They’ve deliberately repeated important ideas at intervals and employed vivid metaphors to enhance retention. The information is offered in small meaningful chunks allowing you to read for 15 min learn something and take a break or explore the content in ways that make sense to you. It’s suggested that readers avoid reading the entire book in a single sitting for optimal memory retention. Instead, they should read a few chapters, reflect on the content, and return to it later, preferably after a night’s rest.

I really enjoyed the review and new insights this book offered me as a learning scientist and also learned some great metaphors and ways of presenting information to my students along the way. Most importantly, it’s easy to comprehend, enjoyable, and memorable. It challenges preconceptions, equips readers with practical tools, and offers a panoramic view of memory’s role in our lives. This narrative promises to be a captivating and valuable resource for those seeking to unlock the full potential of their memory and cognitive abilities.

Getting the Principles Just Right: Classroom Decoration
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 17, 2023

Getting the Principles Just Right: Classroom Decoration

Read More

The benefits of classroom decoration seem intuitive.

After all, we decorate our homes in order to make ourselves — and our guests — comfortable there.

An artist's table, covered with an organized but overwhelming collection on pencils, pens, markers, and so forth

Little wonder that decorating a classroom feels like a natural way to welcome our students, and make them feel right at home.

Also compelling: we can control our classroom decoration.

Whereas so many other parts of teaching life must respond — second by second — to the random chaos of young learners, our classrooms show what we can do when our plans come beautifully to fruition.

And, let’s be honest: we’re often evaluated on classroom decoration. If we can get easy points for decoration on an evaluation form — why not grab them?

To add to all these incentives, let’s add the potential for one more: research. I often see highly specific claims about the benefits of classroom decoration.

For instance, one popular blog post notes that research encourages classroom decorations  — although teachers should leave 20% of wall space blank. (I’ll come back to this number, so it might be worth remembering.)

Beyond Intuition

If our intuition and experience tell us that classroom decorations benefit students, can we find research support for that intuition?

For several years now, research has increasingly thrown those intuitions into doubt.

For the most part, research suggests that classroom decorations can overwhelm students’ limited cognitive resources: working memory, and attention.

Ten years ago, a research team found that kindergarten students learn less in “more” decorated classrooms compared to “less” decorated ones.

Over several years, a research team in Portugal has found that K-16 students score lower on attention and working memory tests taken in busy environments.

Most recently, researchers found that students don’t get used to decorations. That is: decorations distract students in the first week of school, and still distract them 15 weeks later.

If we set intuition (and training) aside, the research-based answer to our question seems clear: less decoration probably results in more concentration and learning.

And yet, in my experience, teachers find this research-based answer unsatisfying…even alarming.

We have, after all, been trained to decorate. We’ve been evaluated on our decorations. The colleagues we most esteem, and the grad-school professors who seemed the wisest, all champion the importance of decoration.

What should we do when our beliefs (decorate more!) crash into research findings (decorate less!).

Guiding Principles

Earlier posts this month have focused on getting details just right. This post, instead, looks at core principles.

First Principle: when research and intuition/training conflict, resist the urge to choose one over the other. Ask if we can improve teaching by drawing on both perspectives.

In this case: can we use research to inform our decorating strategy?

For instance, this well-known review crunches an ENORMOUS amount of data. Only a few of its conclusions focus narrowly on “decoration,” but at least one point strikes me as important.

Specifically, researchers look at the question of “ownership”: the degree to which the students feel like the classroom belongs to them. Their conclusion:

Personal displays by the children create a ‘sense of ownership’ and this was significantly correlated with learning progress.

The word “correlated” is important in that sentence. We can’t say that putting up students’ work causes them to learn more.

But: if both research and our teacherly intuition suggest that personal displays boost learning — that’s a great combination right there.

Second principle: keep the decorations largely academic.

Twenty years ago, I used to have lots of interesting photographs and posters and quotations up in my room. They didn’t relate directly to the material I taught — but they seemed somehow inspiring and energizing.

These days, I keep things much simpler. For instance: I have a set of posters highlighting analytical vocabulary (definitions of “metaphor” and “personification” and “symbolism”).

We have some research suggesting that — in addition to a sense of “ownership” — classroom decorations that highlight academic content can boost learning.

Third principle: investigate research-based claims skeptically.

I noted above that a blog post encourages teachers to leave 20% of the wall space blank. This blog cites the Barrett study to make that claim…but I don’t find evidence to support it anywhere.

Several years ago, I reviewed a book on the subject of classrom design and decoration. It had exactly ZERO footnotes.

When I emailed the author to ask for the research basis of his suggestions, he responded: “It’s ALL based on research.” He did not, however, provide any citations.

So, if someone tells you that “the research shows…,” ask them “what research?” Keep asking until you get an answer.

If you don’t get an answer, you know what to do.

Fourth principle: all in all, less is probably more.

Based on the research cited above, I think our profession has largely gotten in the habit of over-decorating.

It’s painful to admit that old habits might not have been wise; but, now that we know better we can do better.

When we think about each bit of classroom decoration, the question we should ask is not “why should we take it down?” but “am I sure I need to put it up?”

No doubt we can find ways to make our classrooms welcoming, comfortable, and scholarly without overwhelming our students’ cognitive abilities.

Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Building and Environment, 89, 118-133.

Fisher, A. V., Godwin, K. E., & Seltman, H. (2014). Visual environment, attention allocation, and learning in young children: When too much of a good thing may be bad. Psychological science, 25(7), 1362-1370.

Godwin, K. E., & Kaur, F. (2021). The Decorated Learning Environment: Simply Noise or an Opportunity for Incidental Learning?. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 43, No. 43).

Godwin, K. E., Leroux, A. J., Seltman, H., Scupelli, P., & Fisher, A. V. (2022). Effect of Repeated Exposure to the Visual Environment on Young Children’s Attention. Cognitive science, 46(2), e13093.

Rodrigues, P. F., & Pandeirada, J. N. (2018). When visual stimulation of the surrounding environment affects children’s cognitive performance. Journal of experimental child psychology, 176, 140-149.

Getting the Details Just Right: “Pre-questions”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 12, 2023

Getting the Details Just Right: “Pre-questions”

Read More

Teachers, of course, ask students questions. ALL THE TIME with the questions.

We ask questions DURING a lesson in order to “check for understanding.”

We encourage students to ask themselves questions AFTER class, because “retrieval practice” promotes learning.

And, we ask questions BEFORE a unit — for at least two very good reasons.

In the first place, we need to know what our students already know. If we don’t evaluate their prior knowledge, we struggle to build on that prior knowledge in a coherent way.

Young students reading and concentrating

In the second place, we have increasingly strong research about the benefits of “prequestions.”

Unlike “checks for understanding” and “retrieval practice,” “prequestions” come before the unit.

And unlike “measuring prior knowledge,” “prequestions” deliberately focus on facts and procedures that students don’t yet know.

So: if I’m teaching a unit on Their Eyes Were Watching God, I might ask my students:

“What is the definition of a ‘bildungsroman’?”

“Describe the friendship between Langston Hughes and Countee Cullen.”

“What does hair often symbolize in literature?”

Truth to tell, it’s quite unlikely that my 10th grade students know the answers to these questions. So: those are prequestions — not checks for understanding, or retrival practice, or confirmations of prior knowledge.

Here’s the headline: we have reason to believe that “prequestions” — used correctly — help students learn information.

Here’s the story…

Hot Off the Presses

Long-time readers know that Dr. Elizabeth Ligon Bjork has done LOTS of essential work in the field of long-term memory formation and “desireable difficulties.”

And, you know my admiration of Dr. Nick Soderstrom, whose distinction between “short-term performance” and “long-term learning” should inform all teachers’ discussions.

So: when the two work together, they have my attention!

In this case, they JUST published a study on the topic of “prequestions.”

And, this study took place in actual college classrooms — not simply in a psychology lab. For that reason, its conclusions have a better chance of applying to the real-world work that other teachers do in classrooms.

In this research, students answered prequestions at the beginning of a few lectures. The subsequent lectures then provided answers to those questions. (By the way: students got only about 1/3 of those prequestions right — so for the most part they didn’t know the answers.)

On the final exam, students had to answer questions that …

… DIRECTLY related to those prequestions, or

… INDIRECTLY related to those prequestions, or

… were NOT related to the prequestions.

Sure enough, they did better on both directly and indirectly related questions, compared to the unrelated questions.

In brief: prequestions really did help college students learn in the classroom.

So simple! So effective!

So, Those “Details”?

My title promises that we need to “get the details just right.” In this case, as in so many others, I have thoughts. (Important note: at this point, I’m switching from reporting on research to offering my experience-based opinions.)

First Thought

Soderstrom and Bjork specifically write that prequestions helped because students took them seriously.

Here’s my concern: while college students may have the metacognitive perspective to take prequestions seriously, I do worry that younger students might not.

That is: once younger students realize that their answers to these questions don’t really matter, they might not take them as seriously as their college-age selves would.

The structure of prequestions, in fact, might discourage seriousness. Students rarely know the answers to these questions — that’s the point. Why would students attend seriously to questions they can’t possibly answer?

This potential problem leads to two tentative suggestions:

TELL students how and why prequestions might help, and

Use prequestions only RARELY.

After all, the more often that students must answer un-answerable questions, the less likely they are to give them appropriate mental effort.

My hope is: students who encounter prequestions only rarely won’t get cynical about trying to answer them.

Second Thought

If we use prequestions only rarely, are some times better than others?

My instincts are: yes.

Simply put: use prequestions at the beginning of a unit to highlight the most important concepts.

If we can get the benefit of this technique only rarely, then use it at the most important times.

This advice comes from common sense, not  from research — but common sense isn’t entirely forbidden on this blog.

Third Thought

Not all prequestions are created equal.

If a prequestion forces a student to think — that’s a good prequestion: even if they get a wrong answer.

However, if a prequestion activates a prior misconception, that question will actively interfere with learning.

For that reason, we should follow this rule:

Ask prequestions where students don’t know what the answer is, and where they don’t wrongly believe that they do know what the answer is.

For instance:

If I ask my student “which falls faster: a 10-pound bowling ball or a 15-pound bowling ball,” they almost certainly …

… don’t know the correct answer (that’s good), but

… wrongly think that they DO know the correct answer (that’s bad).

So: that prequestion would activate a prior misconception — and make learning harder.

On the other hand, those prequestions I asked at the top of this post (definition of “bildungsroman”) almost certainly don’t active prior misconceptions.

A Secret Unveiled; A Plea for Teamwork

I confess I have one deep frustration with this research pool.

Almost all teachers — and all students — hate tests.

So: if I name something “the testing effect,” teachers and students will HATE it — even if it’s beneficial. (Hint: the “testing effect” is just another way of talking about “retrieval practice.”)

And, if I name something “pretesting,” teachers and students will HATE it — even if it’s beneficial. Pretesting sounds like a test, no?

Sure enough, researchers have named a beneficial teaching “pretesting,” thereby ensuring confusion, and discouraging its use.

But — of course — “pretesting” simply means “asking questions on a topic before you’ve taught the material.” It’s NOT A TEST. It’s just a set of QUESTIONS.

So, I’ve been writing about “prequestions,” although everyone else in this field calls them “pretests.”

I hope you’ll join me in this virtuous rebranding.

TL;DR

Prequestions (aka “pretesting”) help students learn new material — and not just the information in the questions themselves.

Because the technique works if students take it seriously, I suggest …

… using it rarely,

… using it for important material, and

… asking prequestions that DON’T activate prior misconceptions.

Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, E. L. (2023). Pretesting Enhances Learning in the Classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 35(3), 88.

Getting the Details Just Right: Highlighting
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 03, 2023

Getting the Details Just Right: Highlighting

Read More

Because the school year starts right now, I’m using this month’s blog posts to give direct classroom guidance.

Female student using pale blue highlighter in a book

Last week, I wrote about a meta-analysis showing that — yup — retrieval practice is awesome.

Teachers should be aware of a few detail (e.g.: “brain dumps” are among the least effective kinds of retrieval practice).

But for the most part, asking students to retrieve stuff (facts, processes, etc.) helps them remember that stuff better — and to transfer their understanding to new situations.

This week, let’s talk about another strategy that teachers and students might use: highlighting.

We know that retrieval practice is awesome. Is highlighting equally awesome? More or less so? When and how should students highlight?

Start Here

For several years, the go-to answer to this question has come from this research summary, by John Dunlosky, Dan Willingham, and others.

Their rather bleak conclusion:

we rate highlighting and underlining as having low utility. In most situations that have been examined and with most participants, highlighting does little to boost performance.

It may help when students have the knowledge needed to highlight more effectively, or when texts are difficult, but it may actually hurt performance on higher level tasks that require inference making. (emphasis added)

They reached this conclusion 10 years ago. Do we know anything more today?

Who Times Two

Last year, Ponce, Mayer & Méndez published a meta-analysis looking at the potential benefits of highlighting.

They found two key variables not included in the earlier research summary.

First: the students’ age/grade.

Second: the person doing the highlighting.

That is: they found that …

If the INSTRUCTOR does the highlighting, doing so benefits college students AND K-12 students, but

If the STUDENT does the highlighting, doing so benefits college studets but NOT K-12 students.

These findings make rough-n-ready sense.

We teachers know what the important ideas are. For that reason, our highlighting help students (on average) focus on those important ideas — so they learn and understand more.

Students — especially younger students — probably don’t know what the important ideas are. For that reason, their own highlighting might not accentuate important ideas (on average), and so they don’t benefit from highlighting.

When I ask a student why he highlighted a passage, I sometimes get a version this answer: “Honestly, I realized I hadn’t highlighted anything in a few pages, so I thought I really needed to find something that sounded important.”

Little wonder, then, that my 10th graders don’t benefit from highlighting.

Classroom Specifics

Of course, this meta-analysis also arrived at other useful conclusions.

This first one came to me as something of a shock: although highlighting does benefit some students, reviewing the highlights doesn’t.

The researchers write:

“on average, reviewing highlighted text previously highlighted by learners did not improve learning significantly more than students who only read or studied the text.”

I infer from this finding that highlighting helps (if at all) because it prompts students to FOCUS ON and THINK ABOUT information the first time they read it.

It does not, however, help students when they return to the highlighted passage later.

That’s useful to know!

Another conclusion is less of a surprise: training helps.

That is: we can help students (yes, even K-12 students) highlight more effectively.

According to the meta-analysis, we can…

… show students examples of good and bad highlighting,

… help them distinguish between main ideas and secondary ones, and

… emphasize that too much highlighting reduces the benefit.

For example:

I myself don’t ask my English students to highlight much. But, I do ask them to note very specific parts of the text.

When we read Macbeth, I ask them to circle/highlight every time they see the words “do,” “done,” or “deed.” (Believe it or not, those words show an important pattern in the play.)

When we read Their Eyes Were Watching God, they highlight various symbols: hair, gates/fences, mules, trees.

I hope that these very modest highlights help students spot patterns they otherwise would have missed — without distracting them too much from other important parts of the story.

In other words: used judiciously and narrowly, highlighting can provide some benefit.

TL;DR

This recent meta-analysis gives us helpful specifics on how best to use highlighting.

Ideally, we teachers do the highlighting ourselves, especially in K-12 classrooms ; we teach students how to highlight (not too much!); we don’t encourage them to review their highlights.

In fact, as we saw in last week’s post, retrieval practice should replace “review the highlights” as a way to review and study.

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public interest, 14(1), 4-58.

Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., & Méndez, E. E. (2022). Effects of learner-generated highlighting and instructor-provided highlighting on learning from text: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 989-1024.