Andrew Watson – Page 67 – Education & Teacher Conferences

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

Gender Differences in Dyslexia Diagnoses

Andrew Watson

April 19, 2017

Gender Differences in Dyslexia Diagnoses

It has long been true that men are diagnosed with dyslexia more often than women. This article (rather technical, by the way) offers one potential explanation: processing speed.

What is processing speed? It’s an unusually straightforward concept in psychology.

Imagine that I show you a piece of paper with several rows of different shapes. There might be a square, and then a star, and then a rectangle, and then a circle. And so forth.

To test your processing speed, I simply ask you to name all those shapes as quickly and accurately as you can. Or, I might ask you to say the colors of the shapes: the first one is green, the second is purple, and the third orange.

If you accomplish these tasks relatively quickly, you have a high processing speed.

Overall, women have slightly higher processing speed than men–especially in verbal tasks. The authors of this new study find that this difference in processing speed gives women an edge in reading fluency–and reduces the likelihood that they will be diagnosed with dyslexia.

There are no immediate teaching implications of this finding; however, anything that helps us understand how learning differences come to be…and, come to be diagnosed…might help us improve reading and learning in the future.

Andrew Watson

April 17, 2017

The Potential Perils of Google

You have heard before, and will doubtless hear again, that students don’t need to memorize facts because everything we know is available on the interwebs.

Mirjam Neelen and Paul A. Kirschner explain all the ways in which this claim is not just wrong, not just foolishly wrong, but dangerously wrong.

(The danger, of course, is that if we believe it, we’ll fail to teach our students all sorts of things they need to know.)

Students can do critical thinking if and only if they already know lots (and lots) of factual material. We don’t stifle creativity or deep thinking by teaching facts: we make creativity and deep thinking possible.

Andrew Watson

April 15, 2017

The Most Concussive High School Sport?

Brain research can be thrilling; it can be useful; it can be confusing. This article is–frankly–depressing.

Over ten years, from 2005 to 2015, the authors find that the number concussions has more than doubled–even though the sports participation rate has remained almost the same.

They also find that the concussion rate is lower for boys playing (American) football than for girls playing (what Americans call) soccer. You read that right: girls playing soccer are in greater danger of experiencing a concussion than boys playing football.

The greatest rate of increase in concussions over these ten years? For boys: baseball. For girls: volleyball.

Given the short- and long-term dangers of concussions, this research merits careful attention.

If You’re Reading this Blog, You’re Part of the Solution

Andrew Watson

April 13, 2017

If You’re Reading this Blog, You’re Part of the Solution

Dr. Savo Heleta, a scholar at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, argues that scholars should devote more of their work to communicating with readers outside of the university.

Heleta explains that, to his dismay, professors have few incentives to write for a broader audience. As a result, scholars most often write for each other–and, in truth, not very many of each other. (According to one study, 82% of articles published in humanities journals are never cited by another scholar. As my grandmother wryly noted: never is a long time.)

So, how are you part of the solution?

In my experience, Learning and the Brain (along with the related scholarly discipline, Mind Brain Education) is one of the few places where such connections happen regularly and successfully.

You’re a 6th grade science teacher, and you want to learn about the latest research in synapse formation?
You’re an academic psychologist who studies adolescent motivation, and you want to know what high school teachers really struggle with day to day?
You work with special needs students, and you’d like to understand the research into executive function with greater sophistication?

In each of these cases, and dozens more, you’d like to join a dialogue between researchers and K-12 professionals.

You are–simply put–doing what Helata wants the world to do: helping highly specialized knowledge get out of the ivory tower and into the everyday world of education. In Helata’s hopeful phrase, you just might be changing the world.

Andrew Watson

April 11, 2017

Movin’ on Up

This New York Times article offers a handy overview of research into the importance of movement for learning.

However, before you read it, you have to stand up and move around for three minutes.

(By the way, if you’re interested in gestures–that is small, specific motions–rather than movement–that is full body actions–you should check out Sian Beilock’s book How the Body Knows its Mind.)

Andrew Watson

April 09, 2017

More Brain Horsepower?

This article summarizes the current debate — call it a “controversy” — about brain training. (The authors prefer the phrase “cognitive training.”)

The authors conclude that intelligence can be increased, but … so far … only in controlled lab settings. That is: NOT in schools with various training programs…

This article does get a bit technical; for instance, the authors debate whether or not a particular series of studies ought to have been included in Melby-Lervag’s & Hulme’s well-known meta-analysis. (Melby-Lervag & Hulmedid not include the studies, and these authors think they should have.)

At the same time, I think the complexity of the question is the point. If you or your school plan to devote the considerable time and money that this kind of training requires, you should know all sides of the argument.

(Caveat emptor: this article is, in effect, an advertisement for the authors’ book. I haven’t read that book, but … based on the thoughtful balance of the article … they strike me as sensible folk.)

Andrew Watson

April 06, 2017

Your Brain Is Like a Computer, take 357

Because brains are so complicated, people who explain them routinely search for analogies.

Your brain is like a muscle: practice makes it grow stronger.
Your brain is like an orchestra, and the prefrontal cortex is the conductor.
Brain-derived neurotrophic factor is like MiracleGro for synapses.

All such analogies have weaknesses; a few of them have their uses. Most often, the brain is so amazingly unusual that it’s like itself and nothing else.

This article from Science Magazine, however, offers a precise and unusual analogy (and, an unusually precise analogy): your brain is like the internet. Specifically, the way long-term memories strengthen (and weaken) resembles control of information flow on the internet.

Especially if you’re technology savvy, you might enjoy this particular comparison.

If you’ve got brain analogies that you especially like — or don’t like — you might put them in the comments below.

Andrew Watson

April 05, 2017

No Homework in the Orchard

The Washington Post reports on [edit] Orchard School in South Burlington, VT, [~~a PK-5 school in Orchard, VT~~] which no longer assigns homework. Instead — and this is a crucial “instead” — it does urge students and families to read together. Also, it discourages students from adding to screen time, exhorting them to go outside and play.

The school isn’t keeping systematic data (as far as I can tell), but so far they’ve got positive anecdotes — balanced by a few concerns.

For a more research-driven approach to this question, see this earlier post.

[Editor’s note: my thanks to an astute reader who points out there is no such place as Orchard, VT. “Orchard” is the name of the school, not the town.]

Andrew Watson

April 01, 2017

The Benefits (?) of Overlearning

I’m reviewing the vocabulary I learned in today’s Spanish class. The last time I went through my flashcard deck, I got all of those new words right. Should I keep studying? Or, is it time to move on to my Algebra?

In a recently published paper, Shibata and colleagues argue that overlearning benefits long-term memory formation. That is: I should keep studying, because that extra level of work — above and beyond what’s required to get all my flashcards correct — protects these new memories from later interference.

(If you want the neurotransmitter details, Shibata finds that overlearning, which he calls “hyperstabilization[,] is associated with an abrupt shift from glutamate-dominant excitatory to GABA-dominant inhibitory processing in early visual areas. Hyperstabilization contrasts with passive and slower stabilization, which is associated with a mere reduction of excitatory dominance to baseline levels” p. 470. Got that?)

And yet, there’s a reason I put that question mark in the title of this article. Earlier researchers have found that overlearning just doesn’t work. (Doug Rohrer and Hal Pashler have published on this topic here and here.)

For the time being, I’m inclined to believe Rohrer and Pashler. Why? Because Shibata’s research paradigm showed a change in neuotransmitters after 2 days. Rohrer and Pashler’s paradigm showed no benefits for learning after 1 month.

In my view, teachers ought to be more interested in learning than in GABA and glutamate; and we ought to be less impressed by results obtained after 48 hours than by results obtained after 4 weeks.

(To be clear: I am interested in neurotransmitters. But, as a teacher, I’m MUCH more interested in demonstrated learning.)

So, for the time being, I’m will continue to recommend that students and teachers not emphasize overlearning. However, I will add an asterisk to that advice: as of today, our understanding of the neural results of overlearning is far from complete.

Andrew Watson

March 30, 2017

Autism Speaks…about Genes

Some time ago, I linked to an article about varieties of ADHD diagnoses. A recent article in Medical News Today makes a similar point about autism.

From one perspective, we can be tempted to say that someone either does or does not have autism.

From another perspective, that’s a bit like saying some people are taller than 5’10” whereas some aren’t; that statement is true, but it misses MANY crucial complexities. After all, within that category, some people are 5’11”, and others are 6’11”.

There are–in other words–meaningful differences within the category of people taller than 5’10”, and meaningful difference within the category of people who have autism.

In this recent article, researchers announce an additional 18 genes whose variants are associated with autism diagnoses — bringing the (current) total of such genetic variations to 61.

This finding tells us that differences in the presentation of autism may well result from underlying genetic differences that predispose people to autism in the first place. As is always true with complex cognitive functions, we should expect varied plausible causes, and expect several different manifestations.

No two brains are identical; no two diagnoses are identical; no two people are identical. As teachers, we want to understand groups and categories, but we always work with individuals.

Older posts

Newer posts

About Andrew Watson

Newsletter & Event Emails