Andrew Watson – Page 46 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content

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."

Does Media Multitasking Really Interfere with Student Thinking?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

media multitaskingTo many teachers, it just seems obvious: all that screen times MUST be bad for student brains.

To many other teachers, it just seems obvious: technology will unleash academic possibilities and revolutionize education.

So, which is it? Does media multitasking damage students’ cognitive capabilities? Or, does it allow them new avenues to creative possibilities?

Here’s What We Know

In a recent analysis, Uncapher and Wagner surveyed research into this topic.

Sure enough, they found some troubling evidence.

In half of the studies they examined, people who often use multiple streams of technology scored lower on working memory tests than those who don’t.

In two studies, they had a harder time recalling information from long-term memory.

Studies also showed problems with sustained attention.

Here’s a place where media multitasking might help: task switching. Given all the practice that multitaskers get diverting attention from one gizmo to another, they might well get better at doing so.

Alas, most of the research that U&W examined didn’t support that hypothesis.

Here’s What We Don’t Know: A LOT

Although all of the sentences above are true, they don’t answer most questions with any certainty.

For example, if half of the studies showed that high multitaskers do worse on working memory tests, that means that half of the studies DON’T reach that conclusion.

(It’s important to note that NONE of the studies showed that high multitaskers were better at working memory tasks than their counterparts.)

Uncapher and Wagner repeatedly emphasize this point. We don’t have lots of studies — and those we do have don’t all point the same direction.

Another important question: causality. Perhaps multitasking reduces sustained attention. Or, perhaps people who have trouble sustaining attention multitask more often.

Firm Conclusions

At present, we can conclude with confidence that we don’t have enough evidence to conclude anything with confidence.

Overall, the evidence suggests heavy media multitasking might cause (or might result from) relative weaknesses in several cognitive functions.

We certainly don’t have evidence that encourages us to promote multi-gizmo use.

I myself try to stick to one device at a time. Until more evidence comes in, I’ll gently suggest my students do likewise.

(For thoughts on technology and attention, click here.)

Avoiding Extremes: Common Sense in the Middle
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Teachers feel passionate about our work. As a result, we can advocate exuberantly — occasionally too exuberantly? — for a particular position.

Advocates for (or against) Social-Emotional Learning can make zealous claims for their beliefs. Same for PBL, or direct instruction. Or for flipped classrooms, or traditional ones.

Of course, given the variety of teachers, students, schools, curricula — and the variety of societies in which they all operate — we perhaps should hesitate to make absolute claims.

Today’s Shining Example

I recently rediscovered a marvelous example of comfort with the ambiguous middle ground.

In this EdSurge post, Art Markman explains how mindfulness can help. And: how it might not help.

He explains the benefits of a growth mindset. And: its potential detriments.

When asked “if schools teach the way students learn,” he doesn’t scream “OF COURSE!” Nor does he bellow “NEVER!”

Instead, he offers this answer: “Sometimes, but often not.”

In other words: we’re not all spectacular successes or hideous failures. Contrary to much of the rhetoric you hear, we live somewhere in between.

I hope you enjoy reading this interview. And, that Markman’s sensible example offers guidance on moderation and nuance.

I myself look forward to reading more of his work.

Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Here on the blog, I write A LOT about the benefits of “retrieval practice.” (For example: here and here.)

retrieval practice limitations

In brief: our students often review by trying to put information into their brains. That is: they “go over” the material.

However, they learn more if — instead — they review by trying to pull information out of their brains. That is: they fill in blanks on Quizlet, or use flashcards, or outline the chapter from memory.

AT THE SAME TIME…

I also write about the importance of “boundary conditions.”

A particular research finding might be true for this group (say, college students learning chemistry) but not that group (say, 3rd graders learning spelling rules).

(For example: here and here.)

So, I really should ask myself: what are the boundary conditions for retrieval practice?

Retrieval Practice Limitations?

In the first place, retrieval practice has become so popular because it works so well in so many circumstances.

It helps 2nd graders and adult learners.

It helps with declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge.

And, it helps Red Sox fans and Dodgers fans. (I might have made that one up.)

However, I have recently seen research into two retrieval practice limitations, and I think they’re important for teachers to keep in mind.

“Narrow” vs. “Broad” Learning

Researcher Cindy Nebel (nee Wooldridge) wanted to know if retrieval practice helps students learn only the information they retrieve. That is, it might have a narrow, focused effect.

Or perhaps it helps students remember ideas related to the information they retrieve. Retrieval of one memory might broadly influence other memory networks.

In my geography class, for instance, students might learn that the capital of Egypt is Cairo, and that its main economic drivers are tourism and agriculture.

I encourage my students to make flashcards to help them remember capitals. When a student looks at her Egypt flashcard, will remembering its capital (“Egpyt!”) help her remember its main industries as well? Or, does it help consolidate only that specific memory network?

Alas, according to Nebel’s research, RP has a “narrow,” not a “broad” effect. It helps students remember the specific information they retrieved, but not related concepts.

Practically speaking, this finding suggests that we should be sure to tailor retrieval practice exercises quite precisely to the specific memory we want students to form. A question about triassic fossils won’t necessarily help them recall specifics about the end of the cretaceous era.

If we want them remember asteroid impacts, we should use RP to foster those memories.

Question Difficulty, Difficult Questions

A more recent study has looked at other retrieval practice limitations: fluid intelligence, and question difficulty. This research is still behind a paywall, and so I haven’t looked at the specifics.

The abstract, however, suggests that — especially on difficult items — students with relatively low fluid intelligence might benefit more from review than RP.

This research finding raises several questions: how, precisely, do we measure question difficulty?

And: how much stock do we want to put into measures of fluid intelligence?

Classroom Decisions

As always, the question comes down to this: “what should I, as the classroom teacher, actually do?

Based on this research, I think we can reach a few clear conclusions:

In many circumstances, retrieval practice helps students remember more than simple review.

As much as possible, we should ensure that we have students retrieve the precise information (or process) we want them to remember. Nearby questions might not help enough.

When working with difficult material, or with students who really struggle in school, we should keep an open mind. Try different learning strategies, and see which ones prove most effective with this student right here.

I’ll keep you posted as I read more about boundary conditions for retrieval practice.

Life Without Memory: Your Hippocampus and You
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Who are you without your memory?

In neurobiological lingo: who are you without your hippocampus?

The Best-Known Answer

No doubt you’ve heard of Henry Molaison, aka H. M., whose hippocampi were removed in order to cure debilitating epilepsy.

The good news: the operation (more-or-less) fixed the epilepsy.

The (very) bad news: without his hippocampi, Henry couldn’t form new long-term memories. In fact, he struggled to recall prior memories as well.

So much of our knowledge about memory formation comes from Henry’s life.

We understand the brevity of working memory because of H. M.

We distinguish between declarative memory (“knowing what”) and procedural memory (“knowing how”) better because of H. M.

As Suzanne Corkin describes in Permanent Present Tense, research into Henry’s very rare brain tells us more about each of our brains.

Today’s News: A New Henry

On December 29 of 2007, artist Lonni Sue Johnson came down with a bad case of viral encephalitis. As a result, she ended up with severe damage to both her hippocampi. This damage, in fact, resembles H.M.’s surgical lesions.

You can read about her case in a remarkable book by Michael D. Lemonick, The Perpetual Now: A Story of Amnesia, Memory, and Love.

Lonni Sue’s situation resembles Henry’s in many ways — they both live in a “perpetual now” — but their stories differ as well.

First: Henry was relatively young at the time of his surgery, and so he hadn’t yet developed professional skills. (Because his epilepsy also proved quite debilitating, he didn’t get very far in school.)

Lonni Sue, however, was an accomplished artist and musician — even an amateur pilot.

For example: she drew several covers for the New Yorker magazine. You might recognize her whimsical style if you google her art.

Second: Her family decided soon after her illness that they would be as public as Henry’s family had been private. They want her remarkable condition — as much as possible — to benefit science, and the public’s understanding of the brain.

For that reason, when Lonni Sue’s sister Aline ran into Lemonick on the street, she asked if he wanted to write about her life without memory.

Third: Lonnie Sue brought a remarkable good cheer to a life that might seem so depressing, even terrifying, to others.

When Lemonick first met her, she brightly introduced herself and showed him her drawings. Then, she introduced him to a word game she often played: “singing the alphabet.”

She sang a list of words that grew in alphabetical order. Here’s what she sang that first time (and, notice how cheerful the words are!):

“Artists beautifully creating delightful exquisite finery giving hospitable inspiration joining keen laughter’s monthly necessities openly preparing quiet refreshment sweetly turning under violet weathervane xylophones yearning zestfully”

Life Without Memory: Research Findings

For the same reasons that Aline invited Lemonick to write about her sister, she has also invited researchers to learn what they can from Lonnie Sue’s brain.

Lemonick does a wonderful job of explaining these research findings. He does go into the methodological details. But he maintains a big-picture emphasis on the history and meaning of the research.

For instance, we saw that research on Henry helped solidify a distinction between procedural and declarative memory. Further research with Lonni Sue suggests that these categories often overlap.

Her knowledge of music, for example, acts like both declarative and procedural knowledge at the same time.

For teachers, this finding just makes sense.

So many of the skills students learn require them to know facts AND procedures. A chemistry lab, a historical investigation, a business plan: all these school accomplishments ask students to know stuff, and to do things with that knowledge.

The Perpetual Now won’t necessarily help classroom teachers design better lesson plans. But, it does help us understand the rich complexity of human memory.

And, it tells the story of an extra-ordinary life: one where “xylophone weathervanes yearn zestfully.”

I recommend the book enthusiastically.

Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Neil Selwin argues, dramatically, that “EdTech is Killing Us All.”

His point is not that technology is bad for learning, but that it’s bad for the environment. As we think about the educational work we do, we should keep this perspective in mind.

Can Quiet Cognitive Breaks Help You Learn?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

We write a lot on the blog about “desirable difficulties” (for example, here and here). Extra cognitive work during early learning makes memories more robust.

cognitive breaks

Retrieval practice takes more brain power than simple review — that is, it’s harder. But, it helps students remember much more.

Wouldn’t it be great if some easy things helped too?

How about: doing nothing at all?

Cognitive Breaks: The Theory

When a memory begins to form, several thousand neurons begin connecting together. The synapses linking them get stronger.

Everything we do to help strengthen those synapses, by definition, helps us remember.

We know that sleep really helps in this process. In fact, researchers can see various brain regions working together during sleep. It seems that they’re “rehearsing” those memories.

If sleep allows the brain to rehearse, then perhaps a short cognitive break would produce the same result.

Cognitive Breaks: The Research

Michaela Dewar and colleagues have been looking into this question.

They had study participants listen to two stories. After one story, participants had to do a distracting mental task. (They compared pictures for subtle differences.)

After the other, they “rest[ed] quietly with their eyes closed in the darkened testing room for ten minutes.”

Sure enough, a week later, the quiet rest led to better memory. As a rough calculation, they remember 10% more than without the quiet rest.

10% more learning with essentially 0% extra cognitive effort: that’s an impressive accomplishment!

Classroom Questions

A finding like this raises LOTS of practical questions.

Dewar’s study didn’t focus on K-12 learners. (In fact, in this study, the average age was over 70.) Do these findings apply to our students?

Does this technique work for information other than stories? For instance: mathematical procedures? Dance steps? Vocabulary definitions?

Does this finding explain the benefits of mindfulness? That is: perhaps students can get these memory benefits without specific mindfulness techniques. (To be clear: some mindfulness researchers claim benefits above and beyond memory formation.)

Can this finding work as a classroom technique? Can we really stop in the middle of class, turn out the lights, tell students to “rest quietly for 10 minutes,” and have them remember more?

Would they instead remember more if we tried a fun fill-in-the-blank review exercise?

I’ll be looking into this research pool, and getting back to you with the answers I find.

Cognitive Breaks: The Neuroscience

If you’d like to understand the brain details of this research even further, check out the video at this website. (Scroll down just a bit.) [Edit 11/4/19: This link no longer works; alas, I can’t find the video.]

The researchers explain a lot of science very quickly, so you’ll want to get settled before you watch. But: it covers this exact question with precision and clarity.

(By the way: you’ll hear the researchers talk about “consolidation.” That’s the process of a memory getting stronger.)

If you do watch the video, you might consider resting quietly after you do. No need to strain yourself: just let your mind wander…

hat tip: Michael Wirtz

T/F: Timed Tests Cause Math Anxiety?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Questions about math and anxiety have been on the uptick recently.

Over at Filling the Pail, Greg Ashman offers his typically direct analysis. You might disagree with his opinion, but he’s always worth a mental debate.

By the way, a casual aside in his post deserves attention of its own. Here’s how Ashman frames his tests: “I’m just checking in to see how well I’ve taught you.”

That simple sentence accomplishes many useful goals — it’s one I might use myself. It’s hard to imagine an easier way to reduce test stress…

How to Stop Cheating: An Awkward Debate
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

We would, of course, LOVE to prevent cheating.

prevent cheatingIt does moral damage to the cheater. It undermines classroom trust. And: it makes it hard for us to know how much our students are actually learning.

So: what techniques might help us do so?

How To Prevent Cheating: “Moral Reminders”

For some time now, Dan Ariely has made this his field. (Check out his book:  The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone — Especially Ourselves.)

Over the years, he developed a clever research paradigm to see how much people cheat. With that in place, he tested various strategies to prevent cheating.

(He can also promote cheating, but that’s not exactly what we’re looking for.)

One strategy that has gotten a lot of attention over the years: moral reminders.

Ariely asked some students to write down ten books they had read in high school. He asked the others to write down the 10 Commandments.

That is: he made them think about foundational moral standards in our culture.

Sure enough, once reminded about moral standards, students cheated less. (The Cohen’s d was 0.48, which is an impressive effect for such an easy intervention.)

Then Again, Maybe Not

In a study published just a month ago, Bruno Verschuere (and many others) retested Ariely’s hypothesis. Whereas the original study included 209 students, this meta-analysis included almost 4700. That is … [checks math] … more than 20 times as many students.

Studying much more data, they found that “moral reminders” made no difference.

(In fact, they found that students who recalled the 10 commandments were just a smidge likelier to cheat; but, the difference was tiny — not even approaching statistical significance.)

As we’ve seen in other cases of the “replication crisis,” seemingly settled results are back in question.

What’s a Teacher to Do?

Of course, Ariely had other suggestions as well. Signing  pledges not to cheat reduces cheating.  And, of course, teachers who supervise students closely reduce their opportunities to cheat.

As far as I know, these strategies have not been retested (although the second one seems too obvious to need much retesting).

For the time being, sadly, we should rely less on indirect moral reminders, and more on direct pledges — and direct supervision.

Using and Misusing Averages: The Benefits of Music?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

The “10 Minute Rule” tells us that people can’t pay attention to something for longer than ten minutes.

As teachers, therefore, we shouldn’t do any one thing for longer than ten minutes. We need to mix it up a bit.

There’s an obvious problem here. The “rule” assumes that all people think alike — that one number is correct for all students in all situations.

That’s a bizarre assumption. It’s also wildly untrue.

(In fact, the “rule” itself has a weird history. )

The Bigger Picture: When teachers convert averages into absolutes — like, say, the 10 minute rule — we’re likely to miss out on the distinct needs of our particular students.

Today’s Example

Should students listen to music when they study or read?

If we go by averages, the answer is: no! We’ve got data to prove it. We’ve even got meta-analyses.

And yet, as Daniel Willingham argues, we should be aware of the variety in the data:

While mean of the grand distribution may show a small hit to comprehension when background music plays, it’s NOT the case that every child reads a little worse with background music on.

He’s got a specific example in mind:

Some of my students say they like music playing in the background because it makes them less anxious. It could be that a laboratory situation (with no stakes) means these students aren’t anxious (and hence show little cost when the music is off) but would have a harder time reading without music when they are studying.

In other words: psychology research can be immensely helpful. It can produce useful — even inspiring — guidance.

At the same time: when we work with our own students, we should always keep their individual circumstances in mind.

If this student right here needs music to stay focused and relaxed, then data on “the average student” just isn’t the right guide.

 

Live Theater Boosts Student Knowledge and Tolerance
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Question: What’s the most potentially misleading kind of research?

Answer: Research that supports a position you REALLY want to believe.

For this reason, I try to be ferociously skeptical of research that sounds really wonderful to me.

live theater

In this case: I’ve been a theater guy my whole life. I acted in plays throughout high school and college. My first teaching job was as a theater director. As I write this post, I’m about to go to a play.

When I see research showing that attending live theater is good for students, I already believe it’s true. I’m completely certain.

For that very reason, I try as hard as I can to find flaws in the study’s method.

Here’s what I found…

Live Theater: Methods

Researcher Jay Greene and his team chose some high school classes at random to attend live plays, including Twelfth Night and Peter and the Starcatcher. They compared those classes to control group classes, and measured several variables:

Tolerance: how did students respond to statements like “people who disagree with my point of view bother me,” or “I think people can have different opinions about the same thing.”

“Social perspective taking”: how did they respond to questions like “How often do you try to figure out what motivates others to behave as they do?”

Content Knowledge: how well did they learn the play’s plot and vocabulary.

As best I can tell, the researchers made a good-faith effort to make comparisons as fair as possible.

In one case, for example, they sent two classes on the same bus to a college campus. Half the students got off the bus to see a live play, and the others went into the same building to see a movie version of that play.

It’s hard to imagine a fairer control group when measuring the effect of live theater.

Live Theater: the Results

Students filled out their questionnaires several weeks after they did (or didn’t) see the plays.

When they crunched the data, Greene’s team found impressive differences.

On all of these scales, students who saw live theater scored higher than those who didn’t. And, watching a movie version of the play that others saw didn’t have that effect. In fact, it didn’t have any effect.

To put that in other words:

Students who saw live theater were likelier to be open to other points of view.

They were likelier to think about another person’s perspective.

They were likelier to understand the events and the language of the play.

The stats methodology gets into the weeds here — they report their findings based on standard deviations and z scores — but the trend is clear: live theater matters. A lot.

Conclusions

I’m trying to be grimly skeptical here. But I have to say, I just might be convinced.

Given Greene’s conspicuous fairness, his obvious attempts to be as reasonable as possible, his honesty about the potential flaws in his method, it seems just possible that he’s on to something here.

One important point: this is the first study that looks directly at this question. We can never reach firm conclusions based on only one study.

But: as a place to start, this research seems quite persuasive.

Not only we theater people, but all teachers might come to believe that attending live theater helps students learn…and be good people.