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."
Students and teachers can start meditation programs quite easily. And, we’ve heard about its myriad benefits: reduced stress, greater concentration, enhanced classroom cooperation.
If we can fix so many school problems for (essentially) no money, what’s not to love?
We’ve heard about all the good things that mindfulness can produce. Does it lead to any bad things?
Several researchers in Europe wanted to know if it led to “particularly unpleasant” experiences: “anxiety, fear, distorted emotions or thoughts, altered sense of self or the world.”
In particular, they asked if these experiences occurred during or after meditating.
They surveyed 1200+ people who had practiced meditation for at least two months. (The average experience meditating was, in fact, six years.)
Amazingly, more than 300 of them — 25% — reported a “particularly unpleasant” experience.
And, their findings are in line with two earlier studies (here and here), which reported 25% and 32% of meditators had such experiences.
The rate was lower for religious meditators, and slightly higher for men than women. The kind of meditation mattered somewhat. And (surprisingly for me), the rate was higher among those who had attended meditation retreats.
Lots of other variables didn’t matter: for instance, years of meditation experience, or length of meditation session.
Classroom Implications: Don’ts, and Do’s
Don’t Panic. If you’re currently running a mindfulness program, you don’t need to abandon ship.
Keep in mind:
This study asked respondants one question. We can’t draw extravagant conclusions from just one question.
The study focused on adults, not K-12 students.
We can’t draw causal links. That is: we don’t know, based on this study design, if the meditation led to the “particularly unpleasant” experience. We don’t even know what that rate would be for people in a control group.
We’re still VERY EARLY in exploring this question. We’ve now got 3 studies pointing this direction. But, we need more research — and more consistent ways of investigating this link — to know what to make of it.
Do’s
First: Use this research to improve the mindfulness program you have, or the one you’re planning.
That is: If you’ve got such a program, or have one under consideration, ask yourself, do you see signs that your students have unpleasant experiences?
Are you giving them permission and opportunity to say so?
Do the people running the mindfulness session know what to do if they get that kind of response?
After all, this research team isn’t asking schools and teachers to stop meditating. Like good scientists, they’re looking at both potential benefits and potential detriments.
Second: More generally, let this research be a healthy reminder. Almost all school changes lead to both good and bad results.
While mindfulness breaks might have lots of benefits, they might well have some downsides. So too with everything else.
We should always ask about the downsides.
When doesn’tretrieval practice help? Being outside might help some students learn something, but could it hamper others trying to learn other things?
When we actively seek out both the good and bad in the research-based practices we adopt, we’re likelier to use them more thoughtfully and effectively.
You might think I’m using my “rational, left-brained thinking skills” to offer these skeptical opinions.
Alas, the whole left brain/right brain distinction is itself another myth.
In some cases, brain functions happen more on one side of the brain than the other. But, even when we’re undertaking that particular function, we’re using brain regions from all over to get the mental job done.
A case in point…
“Lateralized” Language. Or, not.
Dedicated left-brain/right-brain advocates often point to language function to make their case.
For instance, Broca’s area — which helps us produce coherent speech — is in the left hemisphere. (So is Wernicke’s area, which helps us understand speech.)
Given these truths, they argue that speech is a “lateralized” brain function. In other words, it takes place in one hemisphere of the brain, not the other.
This claim, however, suffers from several flaws.
In the first place, Broca’s area is in the left hemisphere for 95% of right-handed people. But, that’s not 100%. And, that percentage falls to 50% for left-handed people.
Not so left-lateralized after all.
A second problem: language learning requires lots of right-hemisphere participation.
In a recent study, activity in the right hemisphere predicted participants’ later success in learning Mandarin. In fact, “enhanced cross-hemispheric resting-state connectivity [was] found in successful learners.”
Phrases like “cross-hemispheric resting-state connectivity ” might cause your eyes to glaze over. But, this key point jumps out: we can’t meaningfully ascribe language function to one hemisphere or another.
All complex mental activities require activation across the brain.
Teaching Implications
If you get teaching advice that you should do XYZ because a particular mental function takes place in a particular hemisphere: STOP.
Almost certainly, this claim
a) isn’t meaningfully accurate, and
b) comes from sources who don’t know as much about brains as they think they do.
Instead, ask yourself: does this guidance make sense even without claims about lateralization.
If yes, go ahead! If no, don’t bother.
In other words: use your whole brain and be skeptical.
If you’re attending this weekend’s Learning and the Brain conference, you’ll have many opportunities to learn more about autism. In particular, you’ll hear how our understanding of autism gives us a broader understanding of human brains, cognition, and personality.
In this video, professor Simon Baron-Cohen discusses the importance of “joint attention” for early diagnosis of autism.
As you’ll see, joint attention occurs when the pre-verbal child points or looks at an object. Crucially, the child also checks to see if the parent is also looking. (The key passage begins at about 1:15 on the video.)
If you’re interested in joint attention, and especially its role in human evolution, I highly recommend Michael Tomasello’s book The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. In it, Tomasello does a masterly job sleuthing through primate behavior to discover uniquely human traits.
We have to admit it: when it comes to naming things, the field of psychology has no skills.
In many professions, we can easily distinguish between key terms.
The difference between a kidney and a pancreas? Easy.
The difference between a 2×4 and a 1×6? Easy.
The difference between an altimeter and speed indicator? Easy.
But:
The difference between grit and resilience?
Between self-control and self-regulation?
Between an adolescent and a teen-ager? Um….
And, if we can’t define and distinguish among concepts easily, we’ll struggle to talk with each other sensibly about the work we’re doing.
I think of naming problems in several categories:
Sales-Pitch Names
Occasionally, psychologists come up with a name that seems to have been market tested for maximum sales.
Take, for instance, “wise feedback.”
Many researchers have explored a particular feedback structure that combines, first, an explicit statement ofhigh standards, and second, an explicit statement of support.
For instance:
“I’ve made these suggestions on your essay because we have very high standards in the history department. And, I’m quite confident that – with the right kind of revision – this essay will meet those standards.”
I myself find the research quite persuasive. The strategy couldn’t be easier to implement. It couldn’t cost any less – it’s free! And, it’s particularly helpful for marginalized students.
But the phrase “wise feedback” rankles. Whenever I talk with teachers about this strategy, I feel like I’m participating in a late-night cable TV sales pitch.
Couldn’t we find a more neutral name? “Two-step feedback”? “Supportive standards feedback”?
Another example: “engagement.” Blake Harvard recently posted about this word, worrying that it’s too hard to define.
I agree. But, I also worry the name itself tries to prohibit debate. Who could be opposed to “engagement”?
In science world, however, we should always look for opposing viewpoints on any new suggestion. If a brand name – like “engagement” – feels too warm and fuzzy to oppose, the name itself inhibits scientific thinking.
By the way, almost everything that includes the word “brain” in it is a sales-pitch name: “Brain Gym.” “Brain Break.”
Of course, the right kind of exercise and activity do benefit learning. Short cognitive breaks do benefit learning. We don’t need to throw the word “brain” at those sentences to improve those strategies.
Poaching Names
If I’ve got a new idea, and no one pays attention to it, how might I get eyeballs on my website?
I know! I can use a pre-existing popular name, and staple it on to my concept – even if the two aren’t factually related to one another!
That way, readers will think that my new ideas has links to that other well-known idea. Voila – instant credibility.
This “poaching” happens most often with “Mindset.”
You’ve probably read about an “empathy” mindset. Or a “technology” mindset. Or a “creative” mindset. Maybe, an “international” mindset. Or a “your product name here” mindset.
To be clear, these ideas might in fact help students learn. Empathy and creativity and an international perspective can certainly improve schools.
But, Dweck’s word “mindset” has a very particular meaning. She has done quite specific research to support a handful of quite specific theories.
Calling my new thing “a Watson mindset” implies that my work links with Dweck’s. But, that implication needs careful, critical investigation. If you trust Dweck, you don’t have to believe everything called “mindset.”
These names make sense to the people who coin and use them. But, they’re not obviously connected to the concepts under discussion – especially to visitors in the field.
Here’s a crazy example: entity theorists.
Believe it or not, one of the best-known concepts in educational psychology used to distinguish between entity theorists and (not joking here) incremental theorists.
But then, in the late 1990s, Carol Dweck started a rebranding project, and now calls those things a fixed mindset and a growth mindset.
I rather suspect her ideas wouldn’t have gotten such traction without the new names.
(Imagine teachers earnestly encouraging their students: “remember to adopt an incremental theory!” I don’t see it…)
A Really Good Name
In the bad old days (the 2000s), psychologists did a lot of research into “the testing effect.” It’s a terrible name. No one in schools wants anything to do with more testing.
First: far from being confusing, it tells you exactly what it means. Practice by retrieving, not by reviewing. Couldn’t be clearer.
Second: far from being a sales pitch, it remains comfortably neutral. It’s not “awesome practice” or “perfect practice.” You get to investigate research pro- and con-, and decide for yourself.
Third: rather than poaching (“students should develop a practice mindset!”), it stands on its own.
I don’t know who came up with this phrase. But, I tip my hat to a modest, clear, straightforward name.
We should all try to follow this clear and neutral example.
Over at NPJ Science of Learning, Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa debunks the myth that “brain scans see thought.”
In brief, Tokuhama-Espinosa argues that
Each brain imaging machine can, at best, measure a single dimension (electrical, chemical, or structural) of one sub-skill set …
No imaging machine can measure thought, only a sub-element of a thought.
The whole article is worth a read. Tokuhama-Espinosa has long made wise contributions to the field of Mind, Brain, Education. Her writing always merits attention.
As teachers, we want our students to learn academic content: math and reading and music.
At the same time, we ALSO want them to learn how to manage the cognitive functions required to do so.
For instance, we want them to prioritize: “I’ll do this, then that, then t’other.”
We want them to navigate complexity: “If I can’t figure out this problem, I’ll ask my study-buddy. If I still need help, I’ll ask the teacher. If s/he’s not available, I’ll work on this other project until s/he is.”
We want them to inhibit unhelpful thought processes: “I know it’s snowing outside, but I’m going to focus on my book and NOT think about sledding this afternoon.”
In each of these examples, students learn how to manage their cognitive processes — no matter the academic content. Each of those processes is important, whether they’re managing phonics or subtraction or building a bibliography.
We call these mental skills “executive functions.” And, we really need our students to develop them, because executive functions make learning possible.
In fact, they make lots of adult life skills possible. If adults can’t inhibit unhelpful thought processes, we won’t accomplish much in our jobs.
Exercising Executive Function
Because of their importance, we really want to increase these capacities for our students.
Sure enough: if my students explicitly learn how to navigate classroom complexity, they’ll accomplish intricate school tasks more effectively later on.
But let’s ask a different question. Of course, I want my students to accomplish school tasks. I ALSO want them to accomplish tasks that they set for themselves as well.
In other words, we can consider “externallydriven executive function” — where students improve at doing what adults tell them to do.
AND we can consider “self-directed executive function” — where they improve at accomplishing tasks they set for themselves.
How might we help young students get better at this second kind of executive function?
Training Self-Directed EF
Common sense suggests a ready hypothesis. If we let children practice managing their own activities, they’ll get better at doing so.
In other words: children whose free time is highly structured might develop “self-directed EF” more slowly than those whose free time is less structured.
Sure enough, researchers have found exactly that correlation.
6-7 year-olds who had less-structured free time (free play with other children, reading by themselves) showed greater self-directed EF than others who spent free-time in structured activities (karate lessons, art classes).
That is: they were better at accomplishing tasks they set for themselves, not tasks set by adults.
What Should Teachers and Parents Do?
As always, we should respond to this research modestly and incrementally. In other words: do not radically change your teaching or parenting style because of one study.
Note, for instance, that this study looked at 6-7 year-olds. (In fact, the results weren’t statistically significant for the oldest children in the study.)
And, that it established correlation, not causation.
And, it took place in a very particular socio-cultural setting (among relatively affluent families).
With these limitations in mind, the sensible implications go like this:
First: Students learn to regulate themselves differently for different tasks.
They get better at accomplishing adult-set tasks by practicing adult-set tasks.
They get better at accomplishing their own goals by practicing doing so.
Second: we want students to accomplish both kinds of goals.
Therefore, third: we should let them practice both ways. They’ll get better at following instructions when we teach them how to do so. They’ll get better at making their own way when we let them do so.
In Other Words…
I might have hypothesized this way: “children just aren’t all that good at self-regulation. The only way they’ll learn to accomplish their own goals is by practicing the tasks I set for them. Over time, they’ll internalize those mental self-control habits, and use them for their own ends.”
This research throws that hypothesis in doubt. Children learn lots of helpful executive function skills from us. And, they learn lots of executive function skills by practicing on their own.
All those diagrams of synapses and neurotransmitters might be factually correct, but misinterpreted to explain memory formation.
Basically, some researchers argue that we’re thinking about learning in the wrong place. In the old model, we focused on many, many interactions at the very tips of the dendrites.
In a new model, the researchers propose we focus on a few changes at the root of the dendrites — much closer to the place where they connect to the neuron’s main body.
This summary explains the headlines. (The original article itself can be found here.)
Both these links include helpful visuals to understand the difference between these two models.
The details are fantastically complicated. But the possibility of a new model is…technically speaking…awesome sauce.
What Should Teachers Do With This New Knowledge?
Believe it or not, not much.
In the first place, we should remember that for teachers: neuroscience is fascinating, but psychology is helpful.
That is, we don’t really need to know exactly what changes in the brain when students learn. (Although, of course, it’s SO INTERESTING.)
But, we DO really need to know what teaching practices create those neural changes — whatever they might be.
We need to manage working memory load.
We need to help students manage their alertness levels.
And, we need to use retrieval practice.
And so forth.
In every case, psychology research tells us what teaching strategies do and don’t help. If — as might be true in this case — our neuro-biological understanding changes, that change almost certainly doesn’t matter to our teaching.
We still need to manage working memory and alertness.
We still need to use retrieval practice.
And so forth.
We might think differently about the neurons and synapses and dentrites, but we will keep using the most effective teaching practices.
In the Second Place…
Let this news remind us of Kurt Fischer’s famous saying: “when it comes to the brain, we’re all still in first grade.” That is: modern neuroscience is still a young discipline, and we’ve got LOTS more to learn.
So, we can indeed be thrilled by all the neuroscience information we glean at Learning and the Brain conferences. But, we shouldn’t latch onto it too firmly. Instead, we should expect that, as the years go by, our neuro-biological models will need several fresh revisions.
I have, in fact, waited over a year since this article was first published to see what traction it has gotten in the field. So far, I have heard almost nothing about it.
Simply put: I don’t know whether the new model is more accurate than the old. Perhaps, ten years from now, the old model will be seen as an embarrassing relic. Perhaps, instead, the new proposal will have been forgotten.
In either case, we can think more effectively about brains (and about teaching ad learning) if we keep our mental models flexible enough to allow for fresh discoveries.
If you keep up on brain news, you have frequently had this experience:
You read a newspaper headline or a blog link, and news of a potential discovery gives you an adrenaline rush:
Eating garlic may prevent age-related memory loss!
Radoiactive tracer shows effectiveness of cancer treatment!!
Ketamine may relieve depression!!!
Filled with enthusiasm, you read the accompanying article. Only to discover: the research was done on mice. The resulting adrenaline crash might cause you to desire chocolate-chip cookies (according to research done in mice).
Today’s News
Of course, mouse research is super important to establish basic biological processes. But, it doesn’t give teachers useful guidance. Ever.
(Now might be a good time to repeat one of my few absolute rules:
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER,
Change your teaching practice
Based on research
Into non-human animals.)
To highlight the foolishness of headline-hiding-the-mouse gambit, researcher James Heathers has created a vital new twitter account: @justsaysinmice.
That’s it. When you follow his account, you’ll get occasional updates with links to articles drawing breathless conclusions about research. Heathers wants you to know that the research shows results in mice.
As of this writing, Heathers’s account has 29 tweets, and north of 45,000 followers.
(By the way, we’ve written about Heathers’s skepticism before. He is developing a specialty in debunking inaccurate science communication.)
So, to tune up your skepticism skills, I encourage you to make @justsaysinmice a part of your twitter world.
Blake Harvard teaches psychology and coaches soccer at James Clemens High School. For three years now, he’s been actively at work trying out teaching strategies derived from cognitive psychology. And, he blogs about his work at The Effortful Educator.
I spoke with Blake about his work, hoping to learn more about the classroom strategies he finds most helpful and effective. (This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity.)
Andrew Watson
Blake, thank you for taking the time to chat with me.
I always enjoy reading your blog posts, and learning about your strategies to connect psychology research with the teaching of psychology.
Can you give an example of research you read, and then you tried it out in your classroom? Maybe you tinkered with it along the way?
Blake Harvard
Well, first: retrieval practice and spacing. Research tells us that we forget things very rapidly. Forgetting information and then retrieving that information again strengthens ties in the brain. It promotes long term memory of that information.
So, I’m very conscious of different ways that my students elaborate on information and generate information.
What am I doing to have my kids review? Or, how am I spacing out the information that we were learning yesterday versus what we were learning a week ago versus what we were learning months ago. What are the ties among those things? How are they related?
In the past, when we completed a unit of study, it was in the past. We moved on. Now I’m very careful to revisit. I space out their practice and provide the opportunity for my students to think about material we’ve covered in the past.
And second, dual coding.
I think every teacher does some activity where they have students draw something. But dual coding is more than just about drawing things. It’s about organizing the information: how does it link up?
So, using those general concepts of retrieval practice, space practice, and dual coding, and applying them to my class specifically, I’m constantly trying to get my kids to think – to think more.
Andrew Watson:
Can you give an example of a strategy you use to be sure they do?
Blake Harvard
Sure. One example is, I use an unusual template with multiple-choice questions.
In a normal multiple-choice question, you have a kid read it. They answer “B.” You think, “okay B’s correct, let’s go to the next thing.”
Well, I’ve got this template where kids have to use – have to think about – A through E.
If B’s the right answer, they have to tell me why B’s the right answer. That is, they have to think about B.
But, then, they also have to take A, C, D, and E, and think about those too.
Why is C the wrong answer?
Or, how could you make D into the right answer?
Or, what question could you ask to make E the right answer?
Even, why is A tricky?
Andrew Watson
That seems both simple and extraordinarily powerful at the same time.
Blake Harvard
I don’t want to boil all of cognitive psychology down to that, but that’s really central, I think. There’s no elaborate trick. You don’t need any new technology. At the end of the day, you’re just getting those kids’ brains thinking more with the information.
Andrew Watson
Are there some teaching strategies that you read research about, and you tried them out, and you thought: I understand why this works in psychology lab, but it actually just doesn’t work in my classroom. I’m not gonna do it anymore.
Blake Harvard
Well, I just recently did something with flexible seating. I have an AP psychology student who wanted to try this out in my classroom, I said sure.
I have first block and second block class, and they’re both AP Psychology classes, and they’re both on the same pace, doing the same stuff.
We took the first block class, and we put them in a flexible seating classroom. This classroom had beanbags, it had a couch, it had comfortable chairs, it had only one or two tables with traditional chairs.
With my second block class, we kept them in more traditional seating: sitting at tables, facing the front.
And then I taught a unit, which is about seven or eight days, to both classes. I tried to keep everything the same as much as possible, and at the end we took our unit exam and then we compared the data.
So: how did the seating affect the grades, right?
The people in the flexible seating classroom did worse than the people in the traditional seating.
And then I took the grades and compared them to people who took the same course and the same test in years past. I got the same results. The flexible seating in that one classroom was worse than all of the other classes.
I know it’s not perfect methodology. Nothing is perfect “in the wild,” so to speak. But, I gave it a go. And I’ve decided that that’s not what I want to do.
Now, my student was focused more on the emotional part of it: “how did the kids feel about it?”
She had them fill out a survey: “Do you think you did better?” “Did you feel more comfortable in class?” – those sorts of things. And I haven’t seen those surveys yet; she’s compiling information herself. I am interested to see those too.
I heard some of the comments, and it’s interesting. Some of the comments on the first day of the class that was in the flexible seating classroom were like, “Oh my gosh! This is great!” And then by the end it was, “When is this over?”
Andrew Watson:
I’m wondering if your students take the strategies you use to their other classes? Do they study history with retrieval practice? Or science? Or do you find it stays pretty local to the work you do with them?
Blake Harvard
The short answer is: I don’t know. But I definitely impress upon them that this is how you should be studying.
Rereading your notes is not the most effective way to study. Going back over your notes and highlighting them is not effective. If you’re not thinking about the information, if you’re not actually trying to do something with it, you’re probably not being as effective as you should be.
In fact, it’s not just about simplifying; the right study strategies actually save you time. If you’ve tested yourself on this concept two and three times, and you get the same things right, you’re probably pretty good. You got it. Focus on the other things that you haven’t gotten right.
It doesn’t matter if it’s math, it doesn’t matter if it’s biology, it doesn’t matter what it is. The brain works the way the brain works. If you can’t use the information, if you can’t answer this question, you don’t know it. And you need to study it, because if you did know it, you would have answered the question. It’s as simple as that.
Andrew Watson
Yes. So, we talked about whether or not students use these strategies in other classes. Are there things you encourage them to do that have research support, but they’re particularly resistant to?
Blake Harvard
That’s an interesting question. Nothing off the top of my head is coming to me…
You know: those who don’t think they’re great artists – at first, don’t want to use dual coding. Because they think “my drawing’s bad.” And I’ll say: “you know, it’s not about how good your drawing is. It’s about what it represents to you, in your mind.”
Andrew Watson
The mental practice that goes into it.
Blake Harvard
Exactly. Once you explain that to them, they’re much more receptive to it.
Andrew Watson
One of the tricky parts of our field is that there are many teaching strategies that people say have “a whole lot of research support.” And part of our job is to be good at sifting the good stuff from the not good stuff.
Do you have any advice for teachers who are trying to figure out what really is valid and valuable, not just trending on Twitter?
Blake Harvard
It’s never easy, you know.
Often, I look for multiple cases of a particular teaching strategy. Did they test 20 kids in one classroom? Or was this tested across the country?
You also want to think about the people you have in your class. If researchers test a particular demographic, but you don’t teach that demographic, perhaps their conclusion doesn’t apply to your class. Something that might work in an elementary classroom: there’s a chance it could work in my AP Psychology classroom, but I’ve got to really look at it.
To be fair, this is something I’m figuring out myself.
Andrew Watson
I know that you are a coach as well as a teacher. I wonder if you use any of these strategies in your coaching world as well as your teaching world.
I want to show my soccer players what a skill should look like, what the strategy does on the field, why it works.
We want to start small. I want each player individually working on it, and perfecting it or getting better at it. Then we go into a small sided game: maybe two-versus-two or three-versus-three. And then, let’s work it into a bigger scenario.
Eventually, obviously the goal is that they use it in a real-world game.
Just like in the classroom, I’m not a huge fan of inquiry-based learning. I think that there are much more effective ways of teaching than that. I want to explain each new concept to them very clearly, in a very organized way, so that they have a good understanding of what it is. Then we try to apply it to real life. But I don’t start off there.
Andrew Watson
So, you follow the coaching version of direct instruction.
Blake Harvard
Right, yes.
Andrew Watson
Are there questions I ought to have asked you which I haven’t asked you?
Blake Harvard
It’s an interesting journey to get to where I am right now. I graduated with my Master’s Degree in 2006 and up until about 2016 I was just doing just normal professional development: whatever the school had for me to do.
Sometimes I was really excited about it; sometimes I was sitting in there barely paying attention. But now that I’ve found these different types of professional development opportunities, I see they can really improve you, and improve your students and your classroom.
You don’t have to think “I’ll just do the PD that I’m supposed to do and then I go back to my classroom.” There are ways – simple ways, easy ways – to improve your classroom, to improve learning for your students.
Andrew Watson
It’s interesting you say that, because you’ve described my journey as well. I had been a classroom teacher for decades when I found Learning and the Brain, and those conferences completely changed my professional trajectory.
About Andrew Watson 
