Andrew Watson – Page 35 – Education & Teacher Conferences 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
Flipping the Classroom: Asking the Right Question
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 09, 2019

Flipping the Classroom: Asking the Right Question

Read More

When teachers hear about an intriguing new approach, like–say–“flipping the classroom,”we’re inclined to ask: “but does it work?”

Let me propose a different question: “under what circumstances does it work?”

After all, we should assume that many teaching techniques work for this teacher instructing these students in this topic. Alas, those same techniques might not work for that teacher teaching those students this other topic.

So, ask not “does flipping the classroom work?” Instead, ask “does flipping the classroom help seventh graders in Germany learn three basic algebraic principles?”

That question might sound obscure. (Okay, I’m sure it sounds obscure.)

But: research can answer that second question. It can answer the first only by answering the second dozens (or hundreds) of different ways.

So, Does It?

Here’s a very particular example. Doctors in Finland have to write very particular kinds of insurance certificates. Therefore, Finnish medical schools have to teach future doctors to write them.

So our question is: “Does flipping the classroom help Finnish medical students learn to write insurance certificates?”

To answer that question, researchers did everything you’d want them to do. They had one professor teach the lecture-only version of that skill. The med students then practiced at home.

For a different group of med students, the professor created a short video for students to watch at home. And, they practiced the skill in class with the professor’s guidance.

Which group learned better?

The Envelope, Please

The flipped classroom group learned better. A LOT BETTER. The cohen’s d value was 2.85. (I’m typically delighted by a d value of 0.50 or higher. I can’t remember another 2.85.)

So, clearly all teachers should start flipping the classroom–right?

NO WE SHOULD NOT.

This study showed that Finnish med students learned certificate writing better this way.

But, this is a niche-ey topic indeed.

These are fourth year med students. They’re nearing the end of a highly technical education. They’re as good at school as any students on the planet.

Also, they’re learning a discrete skill. I don’t know much about Finnish medical insurance, but I’m guessing it’s quite a distinct genre. The video covering this skill lasted four-and-one-half minutes.

In other words: if you’re teaching very advanced students a very narrow topic, then this study might encourage you to flip the classroom.

But, if you’re teaching beginners, or you’re teaching complex and abstract material, you might want to find other research before trying out this technique.

For instance: this study of students learning epidemiology showed that flipping the classroom made essentially no difference.

Final Thoughts

I have a research adjacent (although, not research supported) opinion about flipping the classroom.

As always, I think the key variable is working memory. The headline is: teachers should have students to do the heavy WM work in the classroom.

So: I guess that the basic principles of insurance certificate writing are easy to understand. But, applying them to specific circumstances can be more challenging.

That is: the application takes more WM. For that reason, watching a video at home and practicing in class with the prof makes sense.

In the case of–say–analysis of literature, those demands are reversed. Students can read stories quite effectively on their own. So, that should be the homework. But, the analysis of that literature requires lots of complex working memory initiative. This sort of discussion should be in-class, with the teacher, and not online.

I’ve never seen research consider flipped classrooms from a WM perspective. But, that framework seems to offer reasonable guidelines–especially if you can’t find research that matches your situation.

 

After I drafted the post above, I found this recent meta-analysis. The headline is that it found modest benefits to flipping the classroom, but that they were subject specific. Alas, the abstract doesn’t say which disciplines do and don’t benefit. I hope it becomes public soon, so we can find out!

When Facing Dramatic Blog Headlines, Ask For Evidence
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 07, 2019

When Facing Dramatic Blog Headlines, Ask For Evidence

Read More

Over at the Blog on Learning and Development, they’ve penned a dramatic headline: Exams May Damage Teenagers’ Mental Health and Restrict Their Potential.

Damage mental health.

Restrict teenagers’ potential.

That’s got your attention.

Your response to such a headline might well depend on your current beliefs about exams.

If you already think that exams harm students, you might cry out a triumphant “I told you so!”  You might send a link to your principal, along with a proposal to cancel the lot of them.

If you already think that exams hold students (and teachers) beneficially accountable for the information and skills they ought to have mastered, you might dismiss the blog post as yet another refusal to maintain strict but helpful standards.

I have an alternate suggestion:

Don’t take sides.

Instead, ask yourself a reasonable and straightforward question:

What pertinent evidence does the blog post offer to support its claims?

After all, you’ve decided to join Learning and the Brain world because you want to go beyond opinions to arrive at research-informed opinions.

So, as you review the blog post beneath that dramatic headline, don’t look for statements you agree (or disagree) with. Instead, check out the quality of the evidence provided in support.

Which Door?

Let’s start by asking this question: which kind of evidence would you find most persuasive?

A survey of high school principals, focusing on student stress levels.

A study comparing the mental health of students who took exams to the health of those who didn’t.

An online poll of high school students and their parents, asking about the highs and lows of high school.

An opinion piece by a noted neuroscientist.

A survey of therapists who work with teens.

Presumably, given these choices, you’d prefer door #2: the research study.

In this hypothetical study, researchers would identify two similar groups of adolescent students. One group would take exams. The other wouldn’t.

When researchers evaluated these students later on, they would find higher rates of mental health diagnosis in the exam group than the no-exam group. (For a relevant parallel, check out this study on developing self-control.)

Such a study would indeed suggest–as the blog states–that “exams may damage teenagers’ mental health.”

The other methods would, of course, reveal opinions. Those opinions might well be informed by different kinds of experience: the students’ experience, their parents’, their teachers’, their therapists’.

But, even well-informed opinions can’t root out the biases that well-designed research seeks to minimize.

Let the Sleuthing Begin

As you begin reviewing this blog post, you’ll find several links to research studies. That’s a good sign.

However–and this is a big however–those cited studies don’t investigate the blog’s central claim. That is: they don’t explore the effects of exams on teens.

Instead, they offer evidence that adolescence is an important time for neuro-biological development. That’s true and important, but it’s not the blog post’s central claim.

Once the author has developed the (important and true) claim that brains change a lot in adolescence, the blog arrives at its core assertion: “GSCEs [exams] impose unnecessary stress on adolescents.”

To support that claim, it offers this link.

Credible Sources

This link reveals good news, and bad.

Good News: the argument that “exams might damage teens’ mental health” comes from a newspaper article covering a neuroscientist’s speech. That scientist–Sarah-Jayne Blakemore–has done lots of research in the world of adolescent brains. She does splendid work.

In fact her most recent book, Inventing Ourselves, has been enthusiastically reviewed on this blog. Twice.

Bad News: the concern that exams might damage mental health is Blakemore’s (very well informed) opinion–but it’s an opinion. She’s giving a speech, not describing a study.

The hypothetical study outlined above–the one that was your first choice for evidence–hasn’t been done. (More precisely: it’s not cited by the blog, or by Blakemore.)

More Bad News: when Blakemore says that “exams” might damage mental health, she means very specific exams: the General Certificate of Secondary Education exams–a kind of a mandatory SAT exam in Great Britain.

That is: Blakemore does not say that exams in general harm students. Despite the headline, nothing in this article even indirectly suggests that schools shouldn’t have final exams.

If you want to persuade your principal to cancel all exams, this article simply doesn’t help you make that case.

Back to the Beginning

Let’s return to the blog headline that got us started: Exams May Damage Teenagers’ Mental Health and Restrict Their Potential.

I think this headline sets up a reasonable expectation. I expect (and you should too) that researchers have done a relevant study, crunched some numbers, and arrived at that conclusion.

They don’t just have an opinion. They don’t just have relevant expertise. They’re not making a prediction.

Instead, they have gathered data, controlled for variables that might muddle their conclusion, done precise calculations, and arrived at a statistically significant finding.

In the absence of that study, it’s genuine surprising that a blog (for an organization that champions brain research) has made such an emphatic claim.

Important Notes

First: I don’t know if the blog-post’s author wrote the headline. Often those two jobs fall to different people. (In newspapers especially, that arrangement can lead to misunderstanding and exaggerated claims.)

While I’m at it, I should also acknowledge that I myself might be guilty of an occasional hyperbolic headline.

I try to stick to the facts. I try (very hard) to cite exactly relevant research. I try to limit my claims to the narrow findings of researchers.

If you catch me going beyond these guidelines, I hope you’ll let me know.

Second: You might reasonably want to know my own opinions about exams. Here goes:

I haven’t seen any research that persuades me one way or the other about their utility.

I suspect that, like so many things in education, they can be done very badly, or done quite well.

Can exams become hideous exercises in mere memorization, yielding lots of stress but no extra learning? Yes, I’m sure that happens.

Can exams be inspiring opportunities for students to show their deep mastery of complex material? Yes, I’m sure that happens.

As is so often the case, I think global conclusions (and alarming headlines) miss the point.

We should ask: what kind of learning we want our students to do? What kind of learning climate we want to create? And, we should ask what kind of exam–including, perhaps, no exam at all–produces that result for most of our students.

Welcoming Students by Welcoming Their Values
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 04, 2019

Welcoming Students by Welcoming Their Values

Read More

What happens when students have the chance to write about their own values?

Could an exercise that simple make a difference in school? Could it help especially vulnerable students?

This idea sounds too good to be true, but it has increasing support behind it. The most recent news comes from Great Britain…

The Background: Stereotype Threat

Back in the 1990s, Claude Steele and other researchers found that stereotypes led to a complex, counter-intuitive thought process.*

The short version goes like this: students who know they might be stereotyped often want to disprove those stereotypes. Paradoxically, their efforts to do so lead them to adopt counter-productive strategies.

As a result, they do less well than they otherwise might have done — and (tragically) reconfirm to themselves the stereotypes they’ve been trying to defeat.

Steele dubbed this process stereotype threat.**

As researchers explored this phenomenon, they quickly got to work trying to figure out solutions.

Solutions: “Values Affirmation”

Happily, we’ve got lots of strategies to combat stereotype threat.

It turns out that growth mindset interventions have a big effect. For instance, this study by Walton & Cohen still amazes me.

A less well-known approach follows this chain of logic:

If students in my class feel a valued and welcomed member of it, they’ll have less cause to worry about potential stereotypes in the atmosphere.

If that’s true, then anything I can do to promote a feeling of belonging should reduce ST.

What, then, might I do?

Several researchers in the US have tried a simple writing strategy. Students have the opportunity to write about their values system.

In theory, this writing should make them feel more welcome, should reduce the salience of stereotypes, should thereby let more learning happen. (Of course, the theory is more complex, but that’s the gist of it.)

The approach is called values affirmation.

Exporting Solutions to Great Britain

Values affirmation has been tested as an anti-stereotype-threat strategy in the US, and has had good results.  (For instance, here.)

Would it work elsewhere?

Researchers in Great Britain asked that question, because stereotypes depend so much on local context.

For instance: academic stereotypes in the United States focus largely on race and gender. Unsurprisingly, most US research focuses on those two topics.

In Great Britain, stereotypes about social class prove much more damaging. So, Ian Hadden and others wanted to know if values affirmation counteracts stereotype threat based on social class (as well as ST based on race and gender).

Details of the Study

Several hundred students took part in a free-writing exercise three times a year.

One control group wrote about their morning routine.

A second control group wrote about

“values that are the least important to you, but might be important to someone else.”

The experimental group wrote about

“values that are the most important things for you personally, and why these things are important for you.”

In earlier studies, for example, people wrote about friendships, or service to others, or their religious faith.

As predicted, these values affirmation prompts neither helped nor hurt the students from relatively high socio-economic status. After all, in this context, this group faced no stereotype threat.

However, these writing assignments made a substantial difference for those who receive free- or reduced-price lunch (that is: students from low socio-economic status families.)

By one measure, they cut the achievement gap by 62%.

Technically speaking, that’s AMAZING.

In Sum

It sounds too good to be true, but…

By letting students write about their own values, teachers in this school helped students from low socio-economic status families feel more welcome in their classrooms.

As a result, they experienced stereotype threat less often.

And, as a result of that, students learned more.

Simply put: we can welcome our students by welcoming their values.

* In recent years, several non-replications have led scholars to doubt early research into stereotype threat. This is, in other words, a controversial research pool. I myself think the early research holds together well, and that — given the complexity of the process that leads to ST — non-replications aren’t wholly surprising. To be clear: some thoughtful and knowledgeable disagree with me.

In any case, this study (a non-non-replication) suggests that the theory might well have merit.

** In my experience, people often react very badly to that phrase. It seems to imply blame: “if only you bad people didn’t promote stereotypes,” some people hear, “then this problem would go away.”

However, Steele explicitly rejects that kind of blame. He defines the problem not so much in individuals as in the environment. Everyone knows the stereotype that X people are bad at Y, and so stereotype threat takes place even if none of the people in the room believe the stereotype.

To repeat: Steele isn’t blaming. He’s identifying the social contexts in which counter-productive thought process get started, and trying to fix them.

Sleep Is Essential. And, COMPLICATED.
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
September 01, 2019

Sleep Is Essential. And, COMPLICATED.

Read More

My cat and I enjoy blogging about sleep, for the obvious reason that sleep is delicious.

And, of course, essential for learning.

Most often, I’ve written about the importance of high school start times. Occasionally, I write about naps as well. For instance, a recent study in Brazil found that in-school naps promoted learning. (My cat was pleased, but not surprised.)

I’ve come across two studies recently that help us think about sleep (and its relatives) in new ways.

Study #1: Memory Benefits of “Brief Wakeful Resting”

We’ve got lots of research showing that naps promote learning. Heck: even a 6-minute nap enhances subsequent learning. (Not joking.)

Let’s push the envelope on this question. If a six minute nap helps learners remember, perhaps actual sleep isn’t essential. Perhaps a period of mental down time might do the job.

For instance: maybe a ten minute period of “brief wakeful resting” might be enough to promote better learning.

Sure enough, in this study, participants remembered a story better if they “reste[ed] quietly with their eyes closed in the darkened testing room for ten minutes” than if they engaged in active cognitive task.

In fact, they remembered the story better a week later. In other words: this benefit wasn’t merely temporary, but lasting.

The teaching implications here are intriguing.

Should we build in brief intervals of “wakeful rest” after complex lessons? Should we redesign school schedules to allow such breaks?

At present, we don’t really know–because this research was conducted with 70-year-olds. Now, I have nothing against 70-year-olds. Some of my best parents have been in their 70s. But, few of us teach 70-year-olds.

So, I hope that this research will be tried with younger learners. Perhaps we might find a whole new way to organize the school day.

Study #2: The Best Way to Sleep Too Little

You read that right. Is there a better way to get insufficient sleep?

Of course, we know that adolescents simply don’t sleep enough. (Did I mention high-school start times?)

We’ve got lots of research showing that they benefit from more sleep. For instance, we know that they learn more if they get afternoon naps.

But: what if we could keep the total amount of sleep constant, and change the sleep schedule? Is there a better way to get too little sleep?

Researchers tested this question in Singapore. They had one group of adolescents get 6.5 hours of night-time sleep during the week, and 9 hours of sleep over the weekend.

In other words: like many teens, they’re just not sleeping enough on school nights.

Researchers had a second group of students sleep 5 hours at night and take a 1.5 hour nap during the day.

That is: they also got 6.5 hours of sleep–but that total amount of sleep was divided into night-time sleep and a nap.

Did that make a difference?

Results, and Implications

Sure enough, the group that slept 5 hours at night and 1.5 hours during the day showed superior cognitive function, compared to the group that slept 6.5 hours straight through at night.

More specifically, they did better on visual learning tasks, and on factual learning tasks.

In other words: they had a less-than-optimal amount of sleep. But, they had a better schedule for their less-than-optimal-sleep.

What are the implications?

My own view is: this study gives us reason to believe that afternoon naps will benefit adolescents.

Either teens will get more sleep–which will benefit them.

Or, even if they foolishly sleep less at night knowing they can nap during the day, this split-sleep schedule will still help them learn.

That’s as close to “win/win” as we get with teenagers and sleep.

So, what’s next?

In my experience, most teens currently use afternoons to practice their extra-curriculars: sports, or theater, or debate. That is: if we encourage them to do more afternoon napping, we necessarily leave them less time to do these other things.

For this reason, I hope that soon we’ll see research comparing students who nap to students who exercise.

Information about those bigger-picture trade-offs could give schools, teachers, and parents helpful–and practical–guidance.

A New Book on Dual Coding (That Redefines the Word “Book”)
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
August 29, 2019

A New Book on Dual Coding (That Redefines the Word “Book”)

Read More

Oliver Caviglioli has written a book about dual coding. (Nope. That’s not it. Let me start again.)

Oliver Caviglioli has created a new genre.

It’s 50% scholarly essay, 40% graphic novel, 5% Ulysses, and 5% its own unique magic.

Let me explain.

Back in the 1960s, Allan Paivio developed a theory about cognitive processing. The short version is: humans can process information more effectively if we take in some of it through our eyes, and some through our ears.

Because it encourages us to use two different channels for processing, it’s called dual coding.

Writing a book about dual coding, however, invites paradox. Books, especially traditionally scholarly books, rely almost exclusively on words, and have only occasional images.

But such a “traditional scholarly book” would contradict the very theory that Caviglioli wants to explain. So, he had to come up with something new.

Indeed he has: Dual Coding with Teachers is like no book you’ve seen before.

The Parts

Caviglioli divides his “book” into seven “chapters” — although each is more a free-standing entity than the word “chapter” suggests. (For the sake of convenience, I’m just going to call them chapters.)

Chapter 1, called “Why?”, offers a substantial explication of Paivio’s theory. It goes into schema theory, different conceptualizations of working memory, and even embodied cognition. It reviews lots of persuasive evidence for many segments of the theory.

Following chapters take up different topics for using dual coding theory thoughtfully.

Chapter 2 (“What?”) sorts uses of the theory into specific categories: graphic organizers, walkthrus, sketchnotes, and so forth.

Chapter 3 (“How”) explains the process of creating a successful version of each category.

In every case, Caviglioli combines words with icons and images to map out the concepts and their relationships.

That is: he employs dual coding to explain the theory and practice of dual coding.

Said in other words: readers can learn as much about dual coding by studying the design and execution of the book as they can by studying the book’s contents.

The Sum of the Parts

I suspect few people will want to treat Caviglioli’s creation like a typical book. That is: you won’t read it from beginning to end.

Instead, you’ll probably use it more like one of those 800 page manuals that used to come with complex software. You’ll dip in and out; leaf around looking for pointers or for inspiration.

If you’re having trouble deciding which kind of visual to use, have a gander at chapter two.

If you’re dissatisfied with the look of your poster, check out chapter 4 (“Which”). It offers some essential design principles, and even pointers on how best to hold a pencil. (Not joking.)

If you’re looking for inspiration, savor Caviglioli’s longest chapter: “Who.” These 70+ pages (!) offer dozens of examples where teachers, psychologists, and others show how they use dual coding to teach, persuade, clarify, organize, simplify, and deepen.

As a final strategy, you might check out Caviglioli’s Twitter account: @olicav. Since the book came out, teachers have been trying out his approach and asking for online feedback. The result: a day-by-day tutorial in applying the principles of dual coding to a complex variety of classroom needs.

Closing Thoughts

Because Caviglioli has created a new genre, he makes extra demands on his readers. These pages–although beautiful–can be informationally dense. If you’re like me, you won’t so much read each page as dwell upon it for a while.

In fact, you’ll probably go back to re-dwell on earlier pages as you try to put the pieces together.

My suggestion: be patient with yourself. You might need more time to explore Dual Coding than you do with most books. You might also find that extra time well worth the revelation.

Obsessed with Working Memory: Resources
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
August 22, 2019

Obsessed with Working Memory: Resources

Read More

We’ve taken the summer to explore working memory together.

You know how to define it.

You know key facts about it.

You can anticipate and recognize working memory overload.

And, you can solve those WM problems.

To conclude this series, I’d like to give you a few extra WM resources to draw upon.

The Book, and The Web

I’ve written a book about working memory called Learning Begins. In fact, the articles from this summer draw heavily on the structure of that book. If you have enjoyed this overview, I hope you’ll enjoy its fuller exploration as well.

This post by Efrat Furst explores the relationship between working memory and long-term memory.

This gif by Nick Harvey Smith prompted GREAT discussions at a recent presentation on WM.

Adam Boxer summarizes Cognitive Load Theory here. As Boxer explains, CLT wasn’t created with teachers in mind. I myself find it a) really interesting and b) more jargony than is useful for most teachers. But, if you want a deep dive, this is a great place to dig. (More CTL resources here.)

You can test out your own working memory — and experience WM overload — here.

The Research and the Researchers

Unsurprisingly, psychologists and neuroscientists have published thousands of research studies on the subject of working memory. This list gives a brisk introduction to the topics, opinions, and approaches you can find once you start exploring.

 

What, exactly, are the differences between short-term, long-term, and working memory? Nelson Cowan has some answers.

Alan Baddeley offers the best known model of WM. He summarizes his research and opinions here.

How does WM develop during school years? Susan Gathercole has data.

Nope. WM training does not work. Really, just, no.

WM works more efficiently with information we already know well than with new information (like the information students get because “they can just look it up on the internet”).

Too many instructions tax working memory.

Frederique Autin and colleagues explain that we can free up WM by reducing students’ stress levels. The specific strategy: have them think differently about the cognitive challenge they face.

The relationship between WM and creativity? Shelley Carson has you covered.

We can free up WM capacity by using the right teaching strategies.

If you’re interested in a technical exploration of WM, executive attention, and the prefrontal cortex, check out Michael Kane’s work here.

And Finally, An Offer…

I love thinking about and talking about working memory. If you have a question or a crazy idea, feel free to email me: [email protected].

Teens Who Recognize Their Emotions Manage Stress Better. We Can Help (Maybe).
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
August 15, 2019

Teens Who Recognize Their Emotions Manage Stress Better. We Can Help (Maybe).

Read More

Why are teens so adolescent?

Why are they so infuriatingly wonderful? So wonderfully infuriating?

Researchers have offered an intriguing suggestion:

Children can tell you what they’re feeling with confidence. They believe they can experience only one emotion at a time, and so they label it with certainty.

Adults can also tell you what they’re feeling with confidence. They know they can experience many emotions at once, and they have lots of experience figuring out the combination that they feel right now.

Adolescents — sometimes — don’t really know what they’re feeling. Like adults, they know they can experience many emotions. But unlike adults, they don’t yet have much experience describing combinations. And so, unlike children, they’re uncertain what they’re feeling.

We’ve blogged about this research here.

Individual Differences Matter

So, adolescents don’t distinguish among complex emotions as well as adults do.

Of course: individual teens develop along different paths. Some differentiate among emotions better than others.

Researchers at Emory wanted to know: do those differences have meaningful effects?

In particular, they asked this intricate question: does a teen’s ability to distinguish among negative emotions have an effect on their experience of depression?

In other words: do the hassles and stresses of life lead to depression more often among teens who distinguish among negative emotions less skillfully?

To answer this question, Dr. Lisa Starr and her team interviewed 225+ teens, and then had them fill out online diaries for several days. They then followed up with those teens up to a year-and-a-half later.

In other words, they got LOTS of data spread out over LONG periods of time.

Given all the variables at play, it’s not surprising that the results here are complex: probably too complex to explore in detail. (Click the link if you want the nitty-gritty.)

But the headline is clear: teens who distinguish among negative emotions effectively can manage life stress better than those who don’t.

To say that the other way around: teens who struggle to distinguish among negative emotions are likelier to experience depression as result of life’s hassles and stresses.

What Can We Do?

Students benefit from skill in distinguishing among negative emotions. In fact, those who lack those skills face a higher chance of depression.

So: what can we do to promote those skills?

I’ve asked lead researcher Dr. Starr that question. She pointed me to this study, which suggests that mindfulness training might have some benefits.

That suggestion lines up with this recent meta-analysis, showing that mindfulness can indeed help people manage depression.

Of course: we shouldn’t rely too heavily on just one study. I hope this question leads to greater exploration soon.

Given the scary numbers about adolescent depression, we should do all we can to manage this problem.

Obsessed with Working Memory: SOLUTIONS!
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
August 08, 2019

Obsessed with Working Memory: SOLUTIONS!

Read More

At the beginning of July, we started an in-depth series of posts about working memory.

For starters, we learned how to define it: “a short-term memory capacity that selects, holds, reorganizes, and combines relevant information.” (Handy acronym: SHREK.)

We then focused on its key features. It’s essential for classroom learning. It’s alarmingly small. And we can’t make it bigger (artificially).

For all those reasons, teachers need to be experts at anticipating WM overload. For example: look out for these Dark Sides of the Force.

And, we need recognize WM overload when it happens. (That student who forgot his question while his hand was in the air? That was probably a working memory problem.)

Today’s task: start SOLVING all those problems that we anticipated and recognized.

Solutions, Part I: Rely on Long-Term Memory

First: connect new information to information that students already have in their long-term memory.

Why does this strategy work? Because ideas and facts in LTM require much less working-memory processing than information coming in from the outside world.

And so: if a new idea resembles something in LTM, then that pre-existing knowledge acts as a kind of cognitive crutch.

For example, whenever I teach my students about gerunds, I teach them the Beyoncé rule:

If you like it then you should have put an -ing on it.

My students already have that catchy tune in their heads. By attaching a new grammatical rule (“all gerunds end with ‘-ing’ “) to that catchy tune, I reduce its WM demands.

As a bonus, I also make them laugh.

Second: explicitly teach core facts and processes.

“Rote memorization” of “random facts” has gotten a bad reputation. It seems so not-21st-century.

Alas, we can’t think without knowledge.* If our students have already learned the foundational ideas, definitions, dates, and processes before they start grappling with complex cognitive work, they’re much more likely to succeed.

Why? Because all that prior knowledge in long-term memory reduces WM load.

Solutions, Part II: Spread Cognitive Work Over Time

This solution is so helpfully straightforward.

If a lesson plan overwhelms WM because it includes too much information RIGHT NOW, then don’t include all of it right now. Spread it out.

In some cases, that simply means reorganizing the lesson plan. Let students practice the first topic they learned before they move on to the next one.

Once they’re comfortable with a particular mental process, they’re ready to take more ideas on board. (Barak Rosenshine, I’m looking at you.)

In other cases, you might reconsider if this information needs to be included immediately.

Are you students struggling with several instructions? Spread them out.

Here’s a handy strategy: give one instruction, and wait for all students to complete it before giving the next. (I got this advice at the very first Learning and the Brain conference I attended. Pure magic.)

Note, too, how exceptions can be postponed.

In French, “all nouns that end in -ette are feminine.” Knowing that rule reduces students’ WM load: they have fewer variables to juggle as they tinker with adjectives and pronouns.

That rule, however, has an exception: “squelette” is masculine. But — this is crucial — my students don’t need to know that right now. Why would they need the word “skeleton”?They’re not watching CSI Paris.

So, I can reduce WM load by leading with the rule and postponing exceptions until they’re necessary. (You can alert your students that exceptions might show up later, so they don’t lose faith in your expertise.)

If you anticipate or recognize WM overload, ask yourself if you can put off some of this cognitive work until later in the lesson plan…or, later in the syllabus.

Solutions, Part III: Make Cognitive Work Auditory AND Visual

Schools rely a great deal on auditory processing. That is: students listen to us — and to each other — talking.

However, working memory has both auditory and visual processing capacity. If we use only half of it, we’re leaving substantial cognitive resources untapped. It’s like asking students to carry a heavy box using only one arm. Two arms would be So Much Easier.

This approach leads to some very straightforward strategies. Verbal instructions take up lots of working memory capacity. Written instructions take up less — because students don’t have to “select” or “hold” them.

Oliver Caviglioli has just written a genre-defining book on combining visual and verbal information: Dual Coding with Teachers. If you want to focus on this teaching strategy to reduce WM load, you should get your copy ASAP.

Solutions, Part IV: CUT

Let’s take this hypothetical:

You look at your lesson plan, and anticipate a great deal of working-memory overload. So, you start using these strategies.

You find ways to connect new information to ideas students already know (solutions, part I).

You find ways to spread information out over time (part  II).

You move lots of WM labor into the visual realm (part III).

And yet, you still worry the working-memory load might be too high. What can you do?

You’ve really got only one choice: take stuff out of the lesson plan — and maybe the syllabus. You’ve got to cut.

That’s a troubling answer. We don’t want to cut, because we want our students to learn it all. (And, we might be required to cover lots of things.)

But, here’s the reality: if my lesson plan/syllabus overwhelms my students’ working memory, then their cognitive processes will shut down. That is: their brains will cut stuff out automatically.

If I know that’s going to happen, the only responsible course of action is to make those cutting decisions for them. After all, because I’m the teacher, I know better which parts can be cut without long-term harm.

The Good News about Part IV

By the way: there is some hidden good news in this strategy. If we cut material from an overstuffed syllabus today, then our students are much likelier to learn the remaining ideas than they were before.

As a result, they’ll be better positioned to learn the ideas that come later in the curriculum.

As is so often the case: less might be more. That is, less information early in the curriculum might lead to more learning by the end of the year. Why? Because “less” allowed students to use their working memory more effectively, and hence create more long-term memories.

Concluding Thoughts

I’ve named several strategies here, and given quick examples.

However, to get the most from these ideas, you will adapt them to your own circumstances. As you’ve heard me say before: “don’t just do this thing; instead, think this way.”

That is: once you’ve started THINKING about working memory in your classroom with your students and your curriculum, you’ll see your own way to apply each strategy most effectively.

No one else can tell us exactly how to do it. Using our teacherly insight, wisdom, and experience, we will shape those ideas to fit the world in which we teach.

In sum: once we anticipate and recognize working memory overload, we’ve got many (MANY!) strategies to reduce that load. And, those strategies are flexible enough to work in every classroom. The result: our students learn more.

* If you’re skeptical about the importance of prior factual knowledge, you’re not alone. But, the research here is compelling. Check out

Why Don’t Students Like School? by Daniel Willingham

Seven Myths of Education by Daisy Christodoulou

Making Kids Cleverer by David Didau

Good Dog! Goodbye, Dog…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July 29, 2019

Good Dog! Goodbye, Dog…

Read More

The New York Times is reporting the death of Chaser, a dog who changed the way we think about canine cognition.

We used to think that dogs could learn a handful of words, especially if they got treats afterwards.

Chaser learned over 1000 words — yes, 1000. And, she learned them not because she got treats, but because she enjoyed playing.

Importantly, Chaser learned not only nouns, but verbs. Even prepositions!

The video below shows one of Chaser’s most impressive challenges. In it, Neil DeGrasse Tyson lays down several toys that Chaser already knows. He also adds a new toy: a stuffed image of Charles Darwin.

What will Chaser do when Tyson asks her to “get Darwin”? Will she be able to figure out that the name she hasn’t heard before goes with the toy she hasn’t seen before?

Check it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omaHv5sxiFI

 

When Parents Teach Reading, Do They Also Promote Math Skills?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July 28, 2019

When Parents Teach Reading, Do They Also Promote Math Skills?

Read More

Parents begin teaching children well before schooling starts. Obviously.

In fact, parents often teach children topics that we might consider “academic”: say, how to read, or, how to count.

Researchers might investigate this parental pre-school teaching with some reasonable hypotheses.

For instance:

Presumably, the way that parents teach reading influences the reading skills that their children develop.

Likewise, presumably, the way parents teach numbers and counting influences the math skills that their children develop.

Let’s ask a more counter-intuitive question:

Does the way that parents teach reading influence their children’s math skills?

In other words, does early teaching in one discipline influence understand in a different discipline?

That question might raise skeptical eyebrows, for a number of reasons. In particular, most research that asks this kind of transfer question comes back with a negative answer.

That is: learning in one discipline (say: playing piano) doesn’t usually make you better at another discipline (say: doing calculus).

Today’s Study

Researchers in England wanted to explore this surprising hypothesis. They had hundreds of parents fill out questionnaires. Some questions focused on parental approaches to reading:

How often does the child discuss the meaning of a story with an adult?

or

How often is the child encouraged to name letters or sound out words?

Other questions focused on parental approaches to numbers:

How often is the child encouraged to identify numbers in books or the environment?

They then tested the children on a variety of number and math skills.

Can you put two ducks in the pond?

Can you point to the number 5?

If two horses are on the path, and another joins them, how many horses are on the path?

So, what did they find? Did either of the reading approaches predict number and math skill? Did they predict those skills better than the parents’ direct focus on numbers and math?

The Results

Yes, and yes.

The parents’ approach to reading predicted math success better than the parents’ focus on numbers.

And, when comparing the two approaches to reading,

A focus on letters and sounds led to better math performance than did a focus on the meaning of the story.

In the dry language of research:

Only letter-sound interactions could predict statistically significant unique variance in counting, number transcoding and calculation.

What Should Parents Do?

This research pool is deep and complicated, and — as far as I can see — we’re not yet able to offer definitive parenting advice.

So, this study found that parental focus on letter-sound interactions improved later math skills.

But:

Self-reports aren’t always reliable (although they’re very common in this field), and

The differences weren’t all that great, and

We have many different goals when we teach children to read.

That is: if our only goal were to help students understand numbers, then this study would encourage parents to focus substantially on letter-sound relationships.

But, of course, we want our children to think about the meaning of stories too. That’s one way they learn important developmental lessons. That’s how they think about meaning in their own lives.

This study — especially if it’s confirmed by later research — encourages us to use several strategies to teach our children about words and reading.

And, it gives us reason to think that those multiple approaches will help them with books, and with numbers too.

Older posts
Newer posts