Skip to main content

Author Archives: Andrew Watson

Andrew Watson About Andrew Watson

Andrew began his classroom life as a high-school English teacher in 1988, and has been working in or near schools ever since. In 2008, Andrew began exploring the practical application of psychology and neuroscience in his classroom. In 2011, he earned his M. Ed. from the “Mind, Brain, Education” program at Harvard University. As President of “Translate the Brain,” Andrew now works with teachers, students, administrators, and parents to make learning easier and teaching more effective. He has presented at schools and workshops across the country; he also serves as an adviser to several organizations, including “The People’s Science.” Andrew is the author of "Learning Begins: The Science of Working Memory and Attention for the Classroom Teacher."

Website

Older posts
Newer posts
How to Help Struggling Readers?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-25-2020

How to Help Struggling Readers?

Read More

Reading interventions can suffer from two lamentable problems.

First, they can — paradoxically — benefit strong readers without helping weak ones. Here we see the dreaded “Matthew Effect,” where the rich get richer — in this case, the strong readers get even stronger.

Second, they can require lots of training in complex theories and pedagogical strategies.

We would, of course, like a strategy that benefits everyone — especially the weaker readers. And, one that can be implemented without lots of time-consuming, pricey training.

If that sounds good to you, keep reading…

It’s So Simple, It Just Might Work…

Researchers in Great Britain wanted to test a remarkably simple proposal. What would happen if classrooms stopped teaching “leveled” short reading passages, and simply read two long, challenging books?

To answer this question, they worked with ~350 12-13 year-olds, and 20 teachers, in 10 schools. Teachers chose long novels that they deemed challenging; often, they chose books typically reserved for “higher ability” students: Frankenstein, for instance, or Now Is the Time for Running.

The researchers insisted that the teachers move at a fast pace. The classes had only 12 weeks to get through both challenging books. In fact, some participating teachers worried that the combination of challenging book + fast pace would be too much.

As long as they moved briskly, teachers had lots of freedom. Most read the books aloud for long stretches of time. Others used audio-book recordings, or had students take turns reading in circles. Many would stop to ask or answer questions. Basically they used their teaching skills in whatever way they deemed fit.

So, what happened? Were the teachers right to worry about the challenging book and the fast pace?

Dramatic Results

To measure the effect of this strategy, the researchers used a test of “reading age.” Students in these classes took that test before and after their 12-week reading adventure.

Students in all the groups they measured improved, including the average readers and the advanced readers.

But, what about the struggling readers? That is: what about those who were more that a grade level behind in their reading?

Their “reading age” score improved by 16 months. Three months of this strategy produced almost a year-and-a-half worth of gain.

That’s astonishing.

I should note: those struggling readers remained well behind their peers. But, gosh, they were a lot less behind than before. In other words, this intervention produced a reverse-Matthew Effect: everybody got richer, but the poor started to catch up.

A Hidden Surprise

Part of this research finding, by the way, surprised the researchers.

Half of the teachers in the study simply relied on their experience to make this strategy work. The others got a day-and-a-half of training in…

cognitive reading processes […], and pedagogic strategies including reading the text aloud in class at a fast pace, inference-making, guided group reading and the use of graphic organisers.

How much difference did that additional training make? Um. None. Students who had “untrained” teachers made as much progress as those who had “trained” teachers.

It was the strategy, not the training, that helped. (To be clear, the training led to some statistically significant differences, but not in the ultimate measure: who learned more?)

So, as far as we can tell from this research, we don’t need fancy training to make this strategy work. Our own teacherly experience is — on average — enough.

Boundary Conditions

First: this research was done with 12-13 year olds in an English education system. It might not apply to your teaching context. And, it isn’t remotely claiming to be a method for teaching students to read in the first place.

Second: I don’t know if this research has been replicated. We’re always more comfortable with a strategy when it’s been shown to work many times.

Third: the fact that this strategy seems to have worked for reading doesn’t mean it will work in other disciplines. We should not assume that, say, students will learn to play the violin simply by hearing someone play the violin; or learn to do math simply by watching others solve math problems.

At the same time, I do find this research helpfully intriguing. In fact, if you’re thinking about this strategy, I encourage you to read the initial study. It’s unusually well written. And, it includes helpful details — including comments from teachers in the study.

If you give this a try, I hope you’ll let me know how it goes. According to the initial study, the students loved it.

Revisiting Our San Francisco Conference
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-22-2020

Revisiting Our San Francisco Conference

Read More

I had planned to write a post describing our most recent conference, last weekend in San Francisco (“where every day is cardio day”).

However, one of our attendees — Mark Barrett — got there first. I thought he did such a good job of summarizing so many of the speakers that you’d enjoy reading his words.

Thankfully, Mark agreed to let me copy his post here. I also encourage you to check out his blog, “Education Rumination.”

This past Family Day long weekend, my admin partner, Rupi and I headed down to San Francisco for the Learning and the Brain Conference.  This 55th edition of the Conference was themed, Educating Anxious Minds, and had a record-setting 2500 participants attend from around North America and beyond.  The inspiration for the conference came as a result of recent reports finding that many children and teens are experience significant stress, anxiety, and mental health issues.  The purpose was to help education professionals reduce anxiety and stress in schools; address teen depression and challenging classroom behaviours; foster coping skills and mindful practices; create trauma-sensitive schools; and improve school success by prompting positive teacher-student relationships.

As the Professional Development Chair for the North Vancouver Administrators Association, this conference was particularly relevant for me on a couple of fronts. Firstly, I am in the midst of organizing our annual Administrators Conference in Whistler, and our theme for 2020 is the BCPVPA domain of Relational Leadership.  Many of the speakers touched on how school-based administrators can positively impact school climate, culture and student anxiety through instructional care models that support staff.  High relational leadership capacity is certainly an integral aspect of any successful care model.  Secondly, in my same role as NovA Pro-D Chair, I’ve created a network of 5 different book clubs for my colleagues.  One of the books being read, The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog, was authored by the first keynote speaker, Dr. Bruce Perry, and it was enlightening to hear his behavioural science-based approach to understanding anxious students.

Bruce Perry

Throughout the conference I attempted to live-Tweet to my professional network some of the best sound bites.  Many of my favourite take-aways were from one of the first keynotes, By Dr. Perry.  Among them included:

  • “Our primary work in the classroom is to first regulate the child, or else you can’t connect with them. Humans are relational creatures.”
    Photo by Mark Barrett
  • The key to a trauma-informed classroom is to recognize there needs to be differential dosing of curricular content based on the needs of the child.
  • “A regulated classroom is a rhythmic classroom and a relational classroom. If you stay calm, it will calm them (students) down.”
  • “Administrators need to think about instructional care models.” Because a dysregulated adult can never regular a dysregulated child.

 

Dr. Perry’s talk hit many of the themes that would be highlighted throughout the conference, including that when we attend to the wellness of adults who care for children, we are better positioned to tend to the wellness of students, and that relationships are key to everything, including the personalization of learning.

Dan Siegel

Dr. Dan Siegel was also a highlight speaker for me, and I was pleased to have the opportunity hear him speak not once, but twice.  As a neuropsychiatrist, I appreciated hearing from a perspective grounded in neural science.  One of the key phrases he used was, “Where attention goes, neural firing flows and neural connection grows.”  Essentially what this means is that the adolescent brain goes through a process of pruning some neural networks, and enhancing others by laying down myelin. We strengthen the neural networks we use, and lose those we don’t.  The lesson for educators here is to encourage students in devoting their energies towards those networks they want to build and enhance; to pursue their areas of passion and routines that reinforce health and wellness.

Photo by Mark Barrett

One of the more amusing anecdotes was about the development of the teenage brain in comparison to other adolescent species.  Dr. Siegel described how adolescent gazelles will also engage in risky behaviour by running up to their natural predators and then running away.  While this may, on the surface, seem exceptionally foolish, Dr. Siegel explained that the ability to lead is enhanced when one has been to the precipice of danger and navigated back from it successfully.

Adolescence is also the time when many species begin pushing for their own independence, and look to leave the relative comfort of, what Dr. Siegel calls, “The Oatmeal House”.  (The home where your parents prepare your oatmeal for you every morning! And do your laundry… and pay the bills, etc. etc).  As adolescents prepare to leave the safety of the family collective, social acceptance among their peer group becomes vitally important; so much so that they will cave to peer pressure to gain it and may even act contrary to their values or morals.  From a neuro-science perspective, however, this is actually a survival instinct; because without the safety of the group, those left on the outside looking in have their entire existence jeopardized.

Other gems from Dr. Siegel included:

  • The ‘3 Rs’ of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic are important, but it’s important to also teach the ‘new’ 3 Rs: Reflective skills, Relationship skills, Resilience skills. My colleague Brad Baker also suggested an additional R; ‘Respect’.
  • Defining what ‘integration’ means with respect to relationships and the brain. Integration is where different aspects of a system become linked, but don’t lose their uniqueness.  Integrative relationships stimulate the growth of the integrated brain, leading to regulation and optimal health. Adversity, conversely, impairs brain integration.
  • The identification of ‘4 Ss’ that help promote an integrative brain and, by extension, health and well-being: Safety, being Seen (students need to noticed), Soothed (fears), Security (trust).
  • F.A.C.E.S. is an acronym used to characterize the features of wellbeing: Flexible, Adaptive, Coherence, Energized, Stable

Other Great Speakers

Two other speakers I enjoyed listening to included Dr. Mona Delahooke’s talk on Using Brain Science to Reduce Anxiety, Toxic Stress, and Behavioural Challenges and Clay Cook’s breakout session on Teacher Stress & Wellbeing.

 

Photo by Mark Barrett

Dr. Delahooke, in her empathic approach, suggested that challenging student behaviours are an adaption to autonomic nervous system cues, and that there is a difference between wilful misbehaviour and a subconscious adaptation. The behaviours are only the metaphorical tip of the iceberg, and that it’s our responsibility in caring for our children to delve beyond the surface, seek to understand, and support students as best we can.  I also appreciated Dr. Delahooke’s notion that self-regulation needs to begin first with co-regulation; that the external interaction between students in your classroom/building needs to be upskilled and regulated before attention can be turned inwards for students.

Clay Cook’s breakout session about Promoting Teacher’s Stress Reduction, Emotional Wellbeing, and Positive Social Interactions, really hammered home the theme that unwell adults have difficulty promoting well children.  He also discussed how psychological safety for staff creates a collaborative and innovative learning culture, and that ‘climate’ is how people feel, while ‘culture’ is how people behave.  Finally, Clay noted that high-performing environments and frequent ‘ratcheting-up’ of expectations for students are a potent risk factor for mental health disorders, just as other factors like poverty are.  This idea gave me pause for reflection on how it is we can continue to maintain high expectations and the pursuit of excellence in our students, while simultaneously supporting their mental health and wellbeing.

Photo by Mark Barrett

Overall the conference was a wonderful learning experience, and I found the speakers to generally be highly engaging, knowledgeable and informative.  My notes here represent only a handful of the many talented presenters we saw.  In the end, I left having a better understanding of some of the latest science-based research supporting the work we’re already doing with our students around mental health and wellness, and a renewed appreciation for the commitment I have to building the best relationships I can both with and among my staff.  Lastly, it was also a great opportunity to network with education professionals from the U.S., Canada and beyond.  If you’re considering attending one of the bi-annual Learning and Brain Conferences in either San Francisco or New York, I would highly recommend that you do!

Mark Barrett

Editor’s note: we also have a conference in Boston every fall. We hope you’ll be able to join us — and Mark — soon!

Sharing the Learning and the Brain Experience with Colleagues
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-18-2020

Sharing the Learning and the Brain Experience with Colleagues

Read More

You’ve just gotten back from a Learning and the Brain conference, and – frankly – you’re revved up!

You’ve learned so much new information and gained so many new perspectives, you just want to share it all with your colleagues right away.

Of course, it can be challenging to synthesize and organize all that information. Where do you begin? How do you fit all the pieces together? What was the name of that researcher again?

Happily, lots of people have done this synthesis work for you.

In the past, for instance, I’ve recommended this document by Deans for Impact. In a few brisk pages, it summarizes 6 key findings from the world of cognitive science.

Today’s News

I recently stumbled across another synthesis: this one with a twist. It doesn’t just boil lots of information down to easy-to-understand pages. (Although it certainly does do that.) This synthesis provides questions, examples, and activities to help you share the information with other teachers.

For instance: like many other writers (me included), this one focuses on the science of attention. Simply put, students don’t learn about information they’re not attending to.

This Learning Curriculum (2.0) reinforces that crucial point with a video you might show your colleagues.

It describes teaching strategies that – once we understand the importance of attention – will clearly be more and less effective.

It offers specific classroom suggestions and a warning or two. (Videos get students’ attention. But, alas, students might attend to surface features and miss the core concept we want them to understand.)

It also provokes deeper thought with questions you might put to fellow teachers.

Beyond Attention

Of course, this Learning Curriculum goes beyond attention. It considers working memory (my obsession), and prior misconceptions, and retrieval practice, and a host of other important topics.

I don’t agree with everything written here. (Heck, I don’t agree with everything written anywhere.) But, I think this curriculum…

synthesizes and organizes lots of essential information,

offers specific examples with getting bogged down in details, and

creates something usefully new: a strategy for sharing this information with other teachers. (I particularly like the “hinge questions” designed to be sure teachers understand the principles in application.)

For those reasons, I encourage you to check it out. I hope you’ll let me know your thoughts

“The” Effect of “Exercise” on “the Brain”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-15-2020

“The” Effect of “Exercise” on “the Brain”

Read More

A month ago, I wrote about a Twitter feud focusing on exercise during learning.

When a PE teacher posted a video of his students reading on exer-cycles, edu-Twitter irrupted with champions (“love it!”) and critics (“bonkers!”).

My response at the time was:

First: I rather suspect that exercise during learning will distract students from their reading; however,

Second: we don’t have research on this specific question; and

Third: in the absence of research, it’s probably good for PE teachers to be experimenting in this realm.

In other words: Edu-Twitter, relax.

Today’s Update

Since that mini-controversy, I’ve stumbled across an intriguing research addendum.

Researchers in Germany wanted to know: how does exercise affect the brain. More specifically, does a difference in intensity level matter?

That is: if I exercise 35% below lactate threshold, will that influence brain connectivity differently than if I exercise 20% above that threshold? (“Lactate threshold” measures intensity of exercise; the specifics aren’t super important here.)

To answer that question, they had had about 2 dozen men exercise at those different levels on different days.

The specific results quickly turn into a tornado of acronyms. But, briefly summarized, the researchers found that:

Low intensity exercise enhanced connectivity in networks that help process cognitive and attentional functions, while

High intensity exercise enhanced connectivity in networks that help process emotional responses.

And surprisingly (to me), high intensity exercise also diminished connectivity in networks that process motor coordination.

In other words, “exercise” does not have “an” effect on “the brain.”

Instead, different kinds of exercise have distinct effects on particular brain regions and networks.

Core Conclusions

First: in the short term, different exercise intensities may influence brain regions differently.

Second: that “short term” caveat is important. Notice for instance that high intensity exercise muddles motor coordination networks. Why would that be? The study’s authors suggest it indicates temporary “motor fatigue.”

That is: exercise doesn’t make us worse at motor coordination over the long term — that would be bizarre. Instead, it temporarily tires us out.  Presumably, motor coordination bounces back after we stop exercising.

So, too, we might be tempted to enhance cognitive function with low-intensity exercise. But, just as the motor-fatigue effect was temporary, so too the cognitive-function effect might be temporary.

Third: back to those readers on bicycles. I don’t think this research applies directly to that classroom experiment. (Although, if low-intensity exercise really improves cognitive function — even temporarily — that finding makes those bikes somewhat more appealing. That is: low-intensity exer-cycling might improve the students’ cognition and focus while they read.)

Instead, I think it highlights the importance of patience and specificity. Until we have more research on this specific point, I don’t think we have nearly enough reason to cry either “bravo!” or “bonkers!”

Instead, let’s gather more data. And, in the meanwhile, we can encourage one another in reasonable classroom experiments.

And yes, I do mean even PE class experiments including exer-cycles.

Welcome to San Francisco!
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-12-2020

Welcome to San Francisco!

Read More

We can’t wait to see you at our conference this weekend: Educating Anxious Brains.

Various reports have found that many children and teens are experiencing significant stress, anxiety, and mental health issues.

More than 1 in 20 children ages 6-17 (and one in three teens) suffer from anxiety disorders, according to a June 2018 study in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. A new UC Berkeley study finds that college students have seen a sharp rise in anxiety over the past decade and an American College Health Association study reveals that sixty-two percent of college students report a significant level of anxiety. In addition, according to a 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH), almost forty-five percent of all children in the US have experienced at least one Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE).

Discover how toxic stress, anxiety, and trauma negatively affect developing brains, student behavior, and academic success.

This conference will help you reduce anxiety and stress in your schools and practice; address teen depression and challenging classroom behaviors; foster coping, calming, mindful practices; create trauma-sensitive schools; and improve school success by promoting positive teacher-student relationships.

If you’ll be there, you might want a quick preview of our upcoming speakers.

You can meet many of them at this link. And, many more right here.

If you can’t join us in San Francisco, perhaps you’re free the weekend of May 1st in New York City. We’ll be exploring the Schooling of the Self…

Interested in Action Research? Try This Instead
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-09-2020

Interested in Action Research? Try This Instead

Read More

We don’t do a lot of cross posting here at Learning and the Brain. I believe this is the first time we’ve done so while I’ve been editor.

I think the initiative below is very exciting, and you — Learning and the Brain readers — are just the right audience to take advantage of it.

In this post, Ben Keep and Ulrich Boser of the Learning Agency Lab explain how we teachers can do valuable research in our own classrooms.

If that grabs your attention: read on!

New technologies can help educators become high-quality researchers. ​

When it comes to teaching, there are a million questions to ask about the nature of instruction.

What examples to use? What analogies to draw on? What sequences to teach new ideas? The people in the best position to both ask and answer these questions are often teachers.

Teacher-driven research isn’t new, but — at least in the U.S. — it’s relatively rare. Teaching loads are high and work hours are long, making teachers reluctant to lead education research projects, even when they want to. And, generally speaking, the U.S. school system is not set up to support teacher-driven research.

But in spite of the challenges, teachers want to engage in research. One survey found that over 90% of teachers wanted to influence the direction of research. And 59% wanted to participate in research themselves.

One way to engage is through action research, which certainly has its place in the field. And while the approach has clear benefits, it also has some limitations — like missing comparison groups.

A new kind of tool might help solve this problem. Over the next year, different learning platforms plan on offering tools to assist teachers in running their own research projects. Take ASSISTments ETRIALS Project. There’s already currently a small community of teachers who are performing independent classroom research on ASSISTments and that’s scheduled to expand.

RCE Coach also has plans to put out a version of their software this fall that will facilitate teacher use of the platform. They plan on fostering collaborations and providing workshops and other resources to support teacher research.

There’s also Carnegie Learning’s UpGrade platform. The company has plans to release an easy-to-use UI that lets teachers perform research on the platform. They’re particularly interested in testing whether letting students move ahead at their own pace benefits student outcomes.

These tools all help teachers run randomized controlled trials in their classrooms. That is, they help teachers to randomly assign students to different instructional conditions so that we can figure out which teaching approaches work best — and why.

Action Research Isn’t Action(able) Enough. Or why RCTs?

Current teacher-driven research efforts emphasize action research, which is an approach to deliberately reflecting on one’s own teaching practice with an aim to improve it. Under this model, teachers will often experiment with new teaching approaches, conduct interviews or surveys of students, and make detailed observations along the way. Often, the entire class makes a change, and the teacher reflects on whether the change was effective at improving learning outcomes.

This has led to a lot of fascinating work. But one of the limitations of action research is that, without a meaningful group comparison, it’s hard to know whether the proposed change made a difference.

Putting teachers in charge of running RCTs offers several intriguing benefits. First, teachers are likely to ask questions that researchers might not think of. The tests would also be in the context of a real classroom environment. And the results could be put into practice immediately.

Second, a wider group of teachers becoming involved with research might help bridge the research-practice divide. Teachers do not often learn about the science of learning during teacher training programs. Simultaneously, many teachers feel like existing education research is inaccessible, hard-to-understand, or simply not relevant.

Transparent randomly controlled trials would also give teachers the ability to hone their intuitions about instructional choices. By posting the study design before posting the results, teachers, researchers, and anyone else who was interested could make predictions about what’s likely to happen. This gives people the kind of practice they need to become expert forecasters.

Of course, the approach also comes with significant challenges. With average class sizes of around 25 students, a single class yields very small sample sizes for carrying out RCTs. Teachers also have varying experience with research methods. And it’s still unclear what platform features will best serve the teachers-as-researchers community, and which questions simply can’t be tested using learning platforms.

More Actionable ResearchRCTs In Action

Do students benefit from solving math problems with pencil and paper (as opposed to on a computer)?

Suppose we had a group of students perform a homework assignment where they solved problems with pencil and paper, while a comparable group of students solved the same homework problem on a computer (with no incentive to write it out). Would the first group learn more or less than the second?

A math teacher in Maine — Bill Hinkley — actually decided to test this very question, through an RCT. One group of students was encouraged to use paper and pencil, and had to turn in a piece of paper showing their work. The other group of students went through the homework problems as usual — through a computer screen. Both groups saw and submitted their answers through the same math platform: ASSISTments.

The result? Students who used paper and pencil outperformed those who didn’t by about 13 points. The difference was just shy of statistical significance, but suggestive given the small sample size (15 students in one condition, 12 in the other). Bill Hinkley plans to replicate and expand on the experiment in the near future.

Want To Join The RCT Teacher Research Community?

What would happen if we could scale up this style of research? There are 3.7 million teachers in the U.S. If just one percent of them started engaging in education research, there would be 37,000 teacher-researchers. The largest education research association, AERA, by comparison, has about 25,000 members.

Suppose each teacher-researcher only performed one experiment a year. That’s still 37,000 small experiments, run in realistic, noisy, classroom settings using rigorous research methods. Imagine what we might learn.

Interested in using RCTs in your classroom? Get in touch with us: Email Ulrich at [email protected]

We’re looking to build a community of teacher researchers who are doing this work in schools every day.

How Does Self-Control Really Work? Introducing a Debate
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-06-2020

How Does Self-Control Really Work? Introducing a Debate

Read More

Every teacher I know wishes that our students could control themselves just a little bit better. Or, occasionally, a whole lot better.

Rarely do we worry that students have too much self-control.

All these observations prompt us to ask: how does this thing called self-control really work?

In the field of psychology, that question has led to a fierce debate. If you’d like to enter into that debate, well, I’ve got some resources for you!

A Very Brief Introduction

Roy Baumeister has developed a well-known theory about self-control. You can read about it in depth in his book Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength, written with John Tierney.

Think of self-control as a kind of inner reservoir. My reservoir starts the day full. However, when I come down for breakfast, I see lots of bacon. I know I…MUST…RESIST…BACON, and that self-control effort drains my reservoir a bit.

However, once I finish my oatmeal and leave the kitchen, the bacon no longer tempts me so strongly. I’ve stopped draining the reservoir, and it can refill.

Baumeister’s theory focuses on all the things that drain the reservoir, and all the strategies we can use to a) refill it, or b) expand it.

Baumeister calls this process by a somewhat puzzling name: “ego depletion.” The “depletion” part makes good sense: my reservoir is depleted. The “ego” part isn’t as intuitive, but we’ll get used to that over time.

The key point: in recent years, the theory of ego depletion has come under debate — especially as part of the larger “replication crisis” in psychology.

Some say the theory has (literally) hundreds of studies supporting it. Others note methodological problems, and worry that non-replications languish in file drawers.

Welcome Aboard

Because self-control is so important to teachers, you just might be intrigued and want to learn more.

One great resource is a podcast, charmingly titled “Two Psychologists, Four Beers.” A couple times a month, Yoel Inbar and Michael Inzlicht get together over a few brews and chat about a topic.

In this episode, they talk about this controversy at length and in detail. SO MUCH interesting and helpful information here.

One key point to know: Inzlicht himself is a key doubter of Baumeister’s research. He’s not a dispassionate observer, but an important critic.

Friendly On Ramp

However interested you are in the topic of self-control, you might not have 80 minutes to devote to it.

Or, you might worry it will be overly complex to understand the first time through.

Good news! Ahmad Assinnari has put together a point-by-point summary of the podcast. 

You could read it as an introduction to an upcoming debate, and/or follow along to be sure you’re tracking the argument clearly. (BTW: Assinnari refers to Inzicht both as “Inzlicht” and as “Michael.” And, beware: it’s easy to confuse “Michael” with “Michel,” another scholar in the field.)

So, if you’d like to learn more, but you’re not sure you want to read Baumeister’s book, this post serves as an introduction to Assinnari’s summary. And, Assinnari’s summary introduces the podcast.

With these few steps, you’ll be up to speed on a very important debate.

A Fresh Approach to Evaluating Working Memory Training
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-04-2020

A Fresh Approach to Evaluating Working Memory Training

Read More

Because working memory is SO IMPORTANT for learning, we would love to enhance our students’ WM capacity.

Alas, over and over, we find that WM training programs just don’t work (here and here and here). I’ve written about this question so often that I’ve called an informal moratorium. Unless there’s something new to say, or a resurgence of attempts to promote such products, I’ll stop repeating this point.

Recently I’ve come across a book chapter that does offer something new. A research team led by Claudia C. von Bastian used a very powerful statistical method to analyze the effectiveness of WM training programs.

This new methodology (which I’ll talk about below) encourages us to approach the question with fresh eyes. That is: before I read von Bastian’s work, I reminded myself that it might well contradict my prior beliefs.

It might show that WM training does work. And, if it shows that, I need to announce that conclusion as loudly as I’ve announced earlier doubts.

In other words: there’s no point in reading this chapter simply to confirm what I already believe. And, reader, the same applies for you. I hereby encourage you: prepare to have your beliefs about WM training challenged. You shouldn’t read the rest of this post unless you’re open to that possibility.

New Methodology

One problem with arguments about WM training is that sample sizes are so small. In one recent meta-analysis, the average sample size per study was 20 participants.

In a recent book on cognitive training, von Bastian, Guye, and De Simoni note that small sample sizes lead to quirky p-values. In other words, we struggle to be sure that the findings of small studies don’t result from chance or error.

Instead, von Bastian & Co. propose using Bayes factors: an alternate technique for evaluating the reliability of a finding, especially with small sample sizes. The specifics here go WAY beyond the level of this blog, but the authors summarize handy tags for interpreting Bayes factors:

1-3               Ambiguous

3-10            Substantial

10-30         Strong

30-100      Very Strong

100+         Decisive

They then calculate Bayes factors for 28 studies of WM training.

Drum Roll, Please…

We’ve braced ourselves for the possibility that a new analytical method will overturn our prior convictions. Does it?

Well, two of the 28 studies “very strongly” suggest WM training works. 1 of the 28 “substantially” supports WM training. 19 are “ambiguous.” And 6 “substantially” suggest that WM training has no effect.

In other words: 3 of the 28 show meaningful support of the hypothesis. The other 25 are neutral or negative.

So, in a word: “no.” Whichever method you use to evaluate the success of WM training, we just don’t have good reason to believe that it works.

Especially when such training takes a long time, and costs lost of money, schools should continue to be wary.

Three Final Notes

First: I’ve focused on p-values and Bayes factors in this blog post. But, von Bastian’s team emphasizes a number of problems in this field. For instance: WM training research frequently lacks an “active” control group. And, it often lacks a substantial theory, beyond “cognitive capacities should be trainable.”

Second: This research team is itself working on an intriguing hypothesis right now. They wonder if working memory capacity cannot be trained, but working memory efficiency can be trained. That’s a subtle but meaningful distinction, and I’m glad to see they’re exploring this question.

So far they’re getting mixed results, and don’t make strong claims. But, I’ll keep an eye on this possibility — and I’ll report back if they develop helpful strategies.

Third: I encouraged you to read von Bastian’s chapter because it might change your mind. As it turns out, the chapter probably didn’t. Instead it confirmed what you (and certainly I) already thought.

Nonetheless, that was an important mental exercise. Those of us committed to relying on research for teaching guidance should be prepared to change our approach when research leads us in a new direction.

Because, you know, some day a new WM training paradigm just might work.

von Bastian, C. C., Guye, S., & De Simoni, C. (2019). How strong is the evidence for the effectiveness of working memory training? In M. F. Bunting, J. M. Novick, M. R. Dougherty & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Cognitive and Working Memory Training: Perspectives from Psychology, Neuroscience, and Human Development (pp. 58–75). Oxford University Press.

Where Should Students Study?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
February-01-2020

Where Should Students Study?

Read More

We’ve got lots of advice for the students in our lives:

How to study: retrieval practice

When to study: spacing effect

Why study: so many answers

Where to study: …um, hold please, your call is very important to us…

As can happen, research provides a counter-intuitive — and sometimes contradictory — answers to that last question.

I grew up hearing the confident proclamation that we should create a perfect study environment in one place, and always study there. (The word “library” was spoken in reverent tones.)

As I think about the research I’ve seen in the last ten years, my own recommendations to students have been evolving.

Classic Beginnings

In a deservedly famous study, Smith, Glenberg and Bjork (1978) tried to measure the effect on environment on memory.

They found that, in the short run, I associate the words that I learn in this room with the room itself. That is: if I learn words in room 27, I’ll do better on a test of those words in room 27 than in room 52.

One way to interpret those findings is that we should teach in the place where students will be tested.

If the final exam, inevitably, is in the gym, I should teach my students in the gym. And they should study in the gym. This approach ensures that they’ll associate their new knowledge with the place they have to demonstrate that knowledge.

In this theory, students should learn and study in the place they’ll ultimately be tested.

Priority Fix #1

This interpretation of Smith’s work makes sense if — and only if — the goal of learning is to do well on tests.

Of course, that’s not my goal. I don’t want my students to think carefully about literature for the test; I want them to think carefully about literature for life.

I want them to have excellent writing skills now, and whenever in the future they need to write effectively and clearly.

We might reasonably worry that a strong association between the room and the content would limit transfer. That is: if I connect the material I’ve learned so strongly with room 27, or the gym, I might struggle to remember or use it anywhere else.

Smith worried about that too. And, sure enough, when he tested that hypothesis, his research supported it.

In other words, he found that students who study material in different locations can use it more flexibly elsewhere. Students who study material in only one location can’t transfer their learning so easily. (By the way: Smith’s research has been replicated. You can read about this in Benedict Carey’s How We Learn. Check out chapter 3.)

This finding leads to a wholly different piece of advice. Don’t do what my teachers told me to do when I was a student. Instead, study material in as many different places as reasonably possible. That breadth of study will spread learning associations as widely as possible, and benefit transfer.

That’s what I’ve been telling students for the last several years.

Voila. Generations of teaching advice overturned by research!

Priority Fix #2

Frequent readers have heard me say: “Researchers work by isolating variables. Schools work by combining variables.”

The longer I do this work, the longer I think that this “where to study” advice makes sense only if I focus exclusively on that one variable.

If I start adding in other variables, well, maybe not so much.

True enough, research shows that I’ll remember a topic better if I study it in different places … as long as all other variables being held constant. But, in life, other variables aren’t constant.

Specifically, some study locations are noisier than others. Starbucks is louder than the library: it just is. And, some locations are visually busier than others.

And, as you would expect, noise — such as music — distracts from learning. So, too, do visually busy environments.

So, a more honest set of guidelines for students goes like this:

You should review material in different places. But, you want each of those places to be quiet. And, you don’t want them to have much by way of visual distraction.

You know what that sounds like to me? The library.

I suppose it’s possible for students to come up with several different study locations that are equally quiet and visually bland. Speaking as a high school teacher, I think it’s unlikely they’ll actually do that.

So, unless they’ve got the bandwidth to manage all those demands even before they sit down to study, then I think the traditional advice (“library!”) is as good as anything.

Final Thoughts

People occasionally ask me where I am in the “traditional vs. progressive” education debate.

The honest answer is: I’m indifferent to it. I (try to) focus on practical interpretations of pertinent psychology and neuroscience research.

If that research leads to a seemingly innovative suggestion (“study in many locations!”), that’s fine. If it leads to a traditional position (“library”), that’s equally fine.

I think that, for the most part, having teams in education (prog vs. trad) doesn’t help. If we measure results as best we can, and think humbly and open-mindedly about the teaching implications, we’ll serve our students best.

Today’s Humble Pie: 206 Bones
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
January-30-2020

Today’s Humble Pie: 206 Bones

Read More

Back in early November, I wrote about a study seeming to contrast direct instruction with more constructivist approaches.

I argued that those labels simply didn’t apply to the actual teaching methodologies measured in the research.

So, the “inquiry and problem-based pedagogy” [IPP] used all sorts of direct instruction. Here’s the authors’ summary of that method; I’ve put some words in bold:

“When done well, IPP includes elements of explicit instruction and scaffolding.

Teachers facilitate learning by guiding students through a series of steps and explicitly relating learning to students’ prior knowledge and experiences.

Teachers guide learners through complex tasks with explicit instructions that are relevant to the problems at hand.

They provide structure and scaffolding that help students not only carry out specific activities, but also comprehend why they are doing those activities and how they are related to the set of core concepts they are exploring.”

So, as you can see “direct instruction” techniques are built into this method.

And, the method described as “traditional” seems to me an obvious straw man. Again, quoting from the research:

“Students copy facts about bone tissues and the names of 206 bones of the human skeleton that teachers have written on the blackboard into notebooks.”

I mean, seriously, who does that? Copies the names of 206 bones? Except for Charles Dickens’s Gradgrind — “facts, facts, facts!” — who would do such a thing?

Slice of Pie

I was discussing this study with a friend recently, and it turns out: her college professor would do such a thing. Right here in Massachusetts — home of the very first Learning and the Brain conference!  — her vertebrate anatomy professor put up slides of skeletons and labeled all the bones.

Slide after slide after slide. After slide. (Apparently he interspersed them with funny stories, just to keep the students awake. In my friend’s telling: his students remembered the stories, but not the anatomy.)

Except for the funny stories, Gradgrind would be proud indeed.

In any case, it’s clear that this “traditional” method is NOT a straw man, and at least one professor seems to think it a good idea.

So, to be clear: I do think asking students to memorize some core facts is not only plausible but beneficial. Without essential information in long-term memory, working memory will be overloaded by too much external information.

But: I can’t think of any research-based argument for an entire class — much less an entire course! — devoted to listing bones. That’s not direct instruction. That’s purgatory.

Two Core Points

Point from November’s post: as I wrote back in November, we can’t use this research to champion a pure constructivist approach to learning, because IPP includes lots o’ direct instruction.

Point from today’s post: “direct instruction” does not mean “presenting unbroken lists of facts, and then calling for them to be repeated.” Even if that really happens [shudder], that’s a profound misunderstanding of research and terminology.

“Direct instruction” does mean introducing enough factual or conceptual information to allow students to work thoughtfully — and increasingly independently — on a well-scaffolded series of problems.

Of course, this definition can be expanded and formalized. But: whatever you call “copy the names of 206 bones,” please don’t call it direct instruction.

Older posts
Newer posts