Andrew Watson – Page 40 – 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
Pointing Out Online Mistakes Like a “Jerk”: More Misuses of Psychology Research
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
May 13, 2019

Pointing Out Online Mistakes Like a “Jerk”: More Misuses of Psychology Research

Read More

Headline writers face a difficult task, I suspect.

On the one hand, they want to capture the gist of the article. On the other hand, they really want you to click the link.

I thought about this puzzle when I read this recent headline:

People Who Point Out Grammar Errors Online Are Pretty Much Jerks, Study Finds

That’s an arresting claim. After all, the word “jerks” doesn’t often appear in psychology research papers…

Digging Deeper

So, what does this particular study say? Are people who “point out” online grammar errors “jerks”?

Researchers Boland and Queen asked themselves this question: does someone’s personality profile influence their response to written mistakes — such as typos or grammar errors?

(By the way: it would seem odd if the answer were “no.” If there is such a thing as a personality profile, shouldn’t it capture — among other things — the way people respond to one another’s errors?

But, in the field of psychology, we don’t just assume things. We research them. That’s what Boland and Queen do here.)

To answer their question, B&Q had 80+ people read short paragraphs: people’s responses to a “housemate wanted” ad.

Some of the responses were error free. Some included typos: “maybe we would mkae good housemates.” Some included grammatical errors: “If your someone who likes to play tennis…”

Participants then evaluated the authors of each paragraph. They also filled out a personality survey measuring “the big five” personality traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

So, here’s the research question: did their personality traits predict their responses to grammatical errors and typos?

The Results

The answer is: a smidge.

For instance, people with higher ratings of agreeableness didn’t much care about grammatical errors. People with lower agreeableness ratings cared a bit.

How much?

Well, on average, people with lower agreeableness scored an error-free message as a ~4.2. But, they rated a message with two grammar errors as a ~4.0

On a 7 point scale, does that 0.2 difference really matter? It was statistically significant. But, the researchers’ methodology makes it hard to evaluate the difference.

Here’s a hypothetical. When my students study using method A, they average an 80 on the unit test. When they study using method B, they average an 80.5.

Method B might be “better” in a way that’s statistically significant. But, it’s honestly not significant in the way that you and I use that word. If, for instance, method B takes 3 times as long as method A, that extra 0.5 point almost certainly wasn’t worth it.

So too in this case. The less agreeable folks might, on average, give lower ratings. But, 0.2 points hardly seems like a big enough deal to worry about.

So, Are People Who Point Out Online Grammar Errors Jerks?

First: NO ONE POINTED OUT ANY ONLINE GRAMMAR ERRORS. It just didn’t happen.

Second: The study shows that people with a relatively low agreeable rating feel more judgey about online grammar mistakes.

It does not show that people who comment on grammar mistakes have lower agreeableness scores.

And it certainly does not show that this particular person who just commented on a post has a low agreeableness score.

Those questions are related, but different. And, the differences really matter. Especially if you’re going to call someone a jerk.

Teaching Implications

When you see a headline like “Science Shows Group X Are Jerks,” have confidence it’s a wild overstatement.

So, when “science says” that …

“Teaching method X makes kids brilliant.”

“Cell phones make the world dumb and cruel.” (Or, “Cell phones will transform education and make classrooms perfect.”)

“This one habit will change your classroom forever.”

…follow up with the underlying research. See what the research says specifically. Decide whether or not it works for you and your students.

A Final Note

I’m honestly hoping that this article includes either a typo or a grammatical mistake. If it does, please point it out to me. I promise I won’t think you’re a jerk…

Today’s Unpopular Research Finding: Potential Perils of Mindfulness
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
May 11, 2019

Today’s Unpopular Research Finding: Potential Perils of Mindfulness

Read More

Mindfulness has a great reputation.

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?

Today’s Headline: “Particularly Unpleasant” Experiences

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’t retrieval 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.

Right Brained Language Learning (And Other Reasons to Ignore Brain Myths)
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
May 09, 2019

Right Brained Language Learning (And Other Reasons to Ignore Brain Myths)

Read More

As you know from reading this blog, cognitive psychology offers teachers dozens of helpful ideas.

We’re all better teachers when we enhance executive function and foster attention and manage working memory load.

Alas, over the years, many brain myths have gathered to clutter our thinking.

No, we don’t use only 10% of our brains.

No, the “learning pyramid” doesn’t tell you anything useful. (It doesn’t even make sense.)

No, learning styles aren’t a thing.

“Left-Brained” Skepticism

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.

Visual & Verbal: Welcome to “Dual Coding”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
May 06, 2019

Visual & Verbal: Welcome to “Dual Coding”

Read More

Over at LoveToTeach87, Kate Jones has written a thoughtful and thorough exploration of Dual Coding.

What is “dual coding”? In brief, when we take care to present information in two formats — visual and verbal — we are dual coding.

Schools too often focus on verbal presentation of information. Dual coding theory reminds us to add visuals as well.

Jones’s post begins with a helpful over view of recent work in the field: in particular, the Learning Scientists, and also Oliver Caviglioli.

She then changes gears, and offers a variety of specific classroom for putting this concept into practice:

timelines

comics/storyboards

revised notes

summary cards

And so forth. Because her post includes so many splendid examples, I encourage you to check it out.

Behind the What, the Why

But, why exactly does dual coding help?

The short answer is: lots of reasons. But for me, the core answer comes back — as it so often does — to working memory.

Working memory allows brains to hold, reorganize, and combine information. In other words: all academic learning requires working memory.

And: we just don’t have very much. (Alas, there’s no artificial way to increase it. Yet.)

But, we do have a secret supply of extra working memory. More precisely, we have different WM stores for visual and auditory information.

If I present information only verbally, then students must hold all that information with that part of their WM.

It’s like doing mental push-ups with one arm.

But, if I provide information both verbally and visually, they get to use both parts of their WM.

And, of course, two arm push-ups are much easier to do.

In sum: dual coding helps students learn, because it divides WM load between verbal and visual capacities.

A Brief Warning

This teaching advice sounds a bit like learning styles. It suggests that we’ve got distinct visual and verbal learning capacities.

PLEASE do not confuse these two theories. Learning styles theory has no support — it just ain’t true.

We ALL use visual WM. We ALL use auditory WM. (Those of us who have sight and hearing.)

There is no “style” here. This cognitive architecture supports learning for us all.

And so, dual coding benefits practically everyone.

Early Signs of Autism: “Joint Attention”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
May 02, 2019

Early Signs of Autism: “Joint Attention”

Read More

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.

 

A Rose by Any Other Name Would Smell as Confusing
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 30, 2019

A Rose by Any Other Name Would Smell as Confusing

Read More

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 of high 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.”

(You can find research into this strategy here.)

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.”

(Of course, not everyone does trust Dweck. But: that’s a different post.)

Confusing Names

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.

Let’s rebrand. How about “retrieval practice”?

That name has many strengths:

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.

 

No, Brain Scans Can’t See You Think
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 27, 2019

No, Brain Scans Can’t See You Think

Read More

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.

Does Low-Structure Free Time Improve Executive Function?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 25, 2019

Does Low-Structure Free Time Improve Executive Function?

Read More

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 “externally driven 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.

Some of the time, we should let them.

The Best-Known Neural Model of Learning Might be Substantially Wrong
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 22, 2019

The Best-Known Neural Model of Learning Might be Substantially Wrong

Read More

You read that right.

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.

Building a Better Research Mousetrap: @justsaysinmice
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 19, 2019

Building a Better Research Mousetrap: @justsaysinmice

Read More

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.

Older posts
Newer posts