Ashle Bailey-Gilreath – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content

Ashle Bailey-Gilreath About Ashle Bailey-Gilreath

Ashle holds a Master’s degree in Cognition and Culture from the Institute of Cognition and Culture at Queen’s University Belfast. She currently works as a Research Assistant at the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology at the University of Oxford and is the Web and Social Media Coordinator for the Evolution Institute and This View of Life Magazine. Her research interests broadly include ritual, identity, human cooperation and conflict, international relations, and human rights.

Can Our Evolutionary Past Help Shape Our Classrooms’ Future?
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath


AdobeStock_95617477 CaptionHumans are genetically adapted for learning. The transmission of information, skills, culture, and knowledge from generation to generation has helped us survive and become who we are today. Our journey to becoming modern humans has been shaped primarily because of the change in our environments.

The trouble is, our modern learning (and teaching) environments are not anything like those of our ancestors. Recent research is beginning to present some compelling evidence for implementing evolutionary-influenced practices and policies into our modern education system. In fact, the non-profit think tank I work for has done extensive work in this field, including publishing a textbook, hosting workshops for researchers and educators. We have also helped implement some of these practices in schools in both Florida and New York with great results. In order to design and implement an effective educational environment, we need to understand our evolved abilities to acquire skills and knowledge.

And importantly, some of these ideas have not only been touted by other research fields, but have also been put into practice by some educators. Here are six points that I believe everyone should consider about how our current educational system would look from the perspective of evolutionary theory:

  1. Learning should be child motivated

One way many evolutionary scientists can get a glimpse of our ancestral past is by looking at hunter-gatherer societies. What they’ve found is that adults do not control children’s learning, but rather help children learn as they grow – answering their questions and showing them the skills they need to succeed, when they need them. Within these traditional societies, children (and even teenagers) learn through their own self-direction through play and exploration, making it essential for there to be free time for these activities.1, 2

  1. Children are prepared to learn from birth  

Relative to our lifespans, humans have a longer period of childhood than any other species on the planet. While this prolonged maturing process has its downsides (greater parental investment), it also has its upsides: intelligence.

Our big, complex brains take a lot of time to develop, most of which happens after birth. While I won’t go into the driving factors of this development(which will be featured in a later essay), one thing is for certain: in ancient environments, children would have been very vulnerable because of this prolonged period. Children’s curiosity, playfulness, socialness, and their ability to imitate and learn new skills were extremely valuable for surviving these environments. 3, 4 Children’s prolonged development and innate drive to learn not only helped them survive, but also allowed them to flourish in society, allowing them to learn how to be social, learn and participate in their culture, become innovative, and learn language. This pattern is still evident in hunter-gatherer societies today. 2

  1. Learning should be immediately reinforced

While we all know the long term benefits of learning, young people often have a hard time understanding this. Research has shown that a number of species (from pigeons 5 to monkeys 6, and humans 7) find delayed gratification extremely difficult to hold out for. A great example of this is a very fun study that involved children and marshmallows.

Young children were put a room, one at a time, with nothing but a table, chair, and a big, fluffy marshmallow on a plate. The kids were told that they could eat the marshmallow now if they’d like or–if they could wait until the researcher came back (approximately 15 minutes)– they would be given two marshmallows. Needless to say, quite a few kids ate the single marshmallow.  

One way to address this struggle with self-control is by allowing children to play and explore more. When children participate in self-motivated play and explorations, the benefits often lie in the discoveries made, the excitement of the activity itself, feedback from others participating, and the immediate gratification of learning something new, while having fun doing it.  While sitting quietly in a classroom and listening to a conventional teaching lesson may allow children to learn the same things, they don’t realize that their good behavior and full attention will result in a better education.

  1. Learning is best in mixed-age settings

Before “grade” defined schools, children rarely were segregated by age. In modern hunter-gatherer and traditional societies, learning occurs in mixed age groups. In fact, this was an active model of learning environments as recently as the 19th century.

Children can learn from those older and younger than themselves, whether by imitating an older child or by participating in play and pretend with younger children. When helping younger children, older children begin to learn how to explain and teach their skills, while at the same time younger children are given the opportunity to engage with and learn from older children.

As every teacher knows, we often learn more by teaching than by being taught, especially when our students challenge us.  And research within the social sciences backs up this claim.8 While mixed-aged classrooms may be quite challenging to implement within our current school systems, not only because of the strain on the teachers but also because of constraining curriculum standards, they are something to consider for the future and for other less restrictive situations, like after school programs.  

  1. Learning environments should mimic ancestral conditions

Species are adapted to their long-term past environments, and so prior adaptations sometimes go awry. In other words: humans function in today’s world with evolutionary adaptations better fitted to habitats that are thousands of years old. Many of the problems that schools and children experience today may be unintended consequences of educational environments that are significantly different from ancestral conditions.

One example is physical activity. Physical activity and movement were a central part of the ancestral environment; however, in current learning environments, children are forced to sit still for extended periods of time. In fact, this deprivation of movement, along with other things like physical touch, greatly hamper children’s development. 9, 2

  1. Learning should be democratic

One of the main things that sets humans apart from many other species is our ability to cooperate and be egalitarian.10 People of all ages and cultures cherish having their voices be heard. Children are no different – they are often the first to resist being told what to do.

While this doesn’t mean that children should be allowed to rule the roost, it does suggest that they should be actively involved in the decision-making process, especially in the environment where they spend a significant amount of their time: school.

One popular real-life example of this is the Sudbury Valley School, in which adults do not control children’s education; rather the children make democratic decisions to educate themselves. The administrative body consists of students and staff members who make decisions together on rules, purchases, staff, and learning courses. The school and model have been working for over 40 years, with graduates going on to pursue careers in everything from science and social work to music.

So, how do we implement this knowledge in (and out of) the classroom?

By understanding our evolved abilities to acquire skills and knowledge, we can design and implement more effective learning environments. While some of the points discussed here may be impossible given the constraints of our current education system, there are some things we can do (or maybe you already do!) that can maximize children’s learning potential. One thing you can do is to teach in ways that maximizes immediate gratification! The most successful teachers are those that make their lessons enjoyable and engaging. Allow kids to interact with each other: be playful, curious, and social.

This suggestion ties into a second important point: let kids move, play, and explore with everyone, at all ages. While this strategy may be trickier depending on your school, collaborating with other teachers in other grades may provide a wonderful learning environment for your children to learn in (and learn from). These points don’t have to just take place inside of the classroom; rather they can be applied to all kinds of environments: be they playgrounds, neighborhoods, youth centers, or daycares.

Viewing the learning environment through an evolutionary lens provides us with a deeper understanding of how individuals learn and teach, especially in educational settings. Given what we’ve learned about our brain’s evolution and children’s development, it seems that educational practices need to evolve as well.

References

  1. Gosso, Y., Otta, E., de Lima, M., Moralis, S., Ribeiro, F., & Bussab, V. (2005). “Play in Hunter-Gatherer Societies,” in A. D. Pellegrini & P. K. Smith (Eds.), The Nature of Play: Great Apes and Humans, Guildford Press. [link]
  2. Gray, P. (2009). Play as a Foundation for Hunter-Gatherer Social Existence, American Journal of Play, 4, p. 476-522. [pdf]
  3. Bjorklund, D. (2007) Why Youth Is NotWasted on the Young: Immaturity in Human Development. Blackwell Publishing. [link]
  4. Bjorklund, D. (1997) The Role of Immaturity in Human Development, Psychological Bulletin, 122, p. 153-169. [pdf]
  5. Laude, et al. (2014) Impulsivity Affects Suboptimal Gambling-Like Choice by Pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, p. 2-11. [pdf]
  6. Addessi, et al. (2013) Delay Choice Versus Delay Maintenance: Different Measures of Delayed Gratification in Capuchin Monkeys. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 127, p. 392-398. [link]
  7. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. 
    Science244(4907), 933-938. [pdf]
  8. Nestojko, J.F., Bui, D.C., Kornell, N., & Bjork, E.L. (2014). Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Memory & cognition, 42(7), 1038-48. [pdf]
  9.  Cooper, D., Nemet, D., and Galassetti, P. (2004) Exercise, stress, and inflammation in the growing child: from the bench to the playground. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 16(3), p. 286-292. [link]
  10. Burkart, J. M. et al (2014). The evolutionary origin of human hyper-cooperation. Nature communications5, p. [link]

Ostracism Hurts: Why being ignored can be just as painful as bullying
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath

ostracism

Stories of bullying and harassment in schools have become all too familiar. But there is another form of silent abuse that has been found to be just as devastating – and may be going unnoticed.

Recent research has found that ostracism, being ignored or shunned by others, can actually be more painful to some individuals than bullying or physical harm1,2. While forms of harassment and bullying can be viewed on a spectrum, ostracism has measurable consequences and should be taken just as seriously as physical and verbal abuse.

In fact, the negative effects of being ignored can be long lasting and have been found to lead to health problems, suicidal tendencies, eating disorders, and a reduction in psychological motivation (that is, the initiative that drives us to act on goal oriented behaviors like getting a drink of water when we are thirsty)2, 3. Additional studies have found that kids with special needs or chronic illnesses are at particularly high risk of developing depression as a result of being left out4.

But how can this be? How can something so simple as ignoring someone be just as painful (and sometimes more painful, depending on the person) than bullying or harassing them? The answer lies in our evolutionary past and how our brains have evolved to recognize such abuse.

 

Taking Social Pain Seriously

Ostracism is one of many forms of social pain. When social pain occurs, it is detected in the same regions of the brain as physical pain5, 6, 7. Taken from an evolutionary perspective, the ability for the brain to recognize and respond to social pain, in the same way it responds to physical pain, is essential for one thing: survival. For our ancestors, being the victim of social exclusion meant the loss of social bonds in addition to becoming vulnerable to other factors, such as lack of food and protection.

While this is something modern humans don’t have to worry about now, the residual effects of these survival tactics still appear to be present in our brains. Experiencing ostracism may trigger the brain to think that there is a threat to some of our most basic needs. In order to cope with this, individuals have been found to act more pro-social in an effort to be re-included in the group. In fact, recent research within developmental psychology has found that young children who feel ostracized will imitate others in the group in an attempt to re-affiliate themselves with other group members 8.

Research has also shown that some individuals are at a higher risk of experiencing the effects of ostracism than others. One factor, age, may play a role in how affected you are by social rejection. This may be because brain regions associated with social cognition continue to develop well into adolescence 9. Researchers have suggested that this ongoing neural development may be one of many reasons for why adolescents seem to be more affected by what others think of them and by rejection than adults and younger children, possibly because the ability to regulate and handle “distress from ostracism continues to develop between adolescence and adulthood”10, 11.

Additionally, research has found that kids who struggle with special needs (from ADHD to autism to chronic illnesses such as cystic fibrosis) are at a higher risk of experiencing ostracism and depression as a result. Even when other demographic factors were controlled for, social rejection was revealed to be the strongest predictor of self-reported depression in kids with special needs4.

 

Taking Steps Towards Inclusivity

Whether it’s being shunned from your group at school or being ignored on the playground, ostracism is one of the most devastating experiences a child (or adult) can endure. We strive to fit in: not only to have friends, but because it was necessary for our ancestors’ survival. Now that research is beginning to show how harmful ostracism can be, we need to act in order to lessen its lasting effects on our children.

By being aware of ostracism’s effects, we can begin to take more notice of this often silent abuse. Other things you can do include:

  • Work with anti-bullying organizations in your area
  • Informing policy makers of this growing body of research – this can ensure that appropriate preventions are being implemented.
  • Provide a safe and supportive environment. By doing so, parents, teachers, and school administrators not only provide kids with the opportunity to discuss their experiences with bullying and ostracism, but also create an environment where kids can feel like they belong.

References & Further Reading

  1. Williams, K.D. and Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and Coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2): 71 [link]
  2. O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S.L., Berdahl, J. L., Banki, S. (2014). Is Negative Attention Better Than No Attention? The Comparative Effects of Ostracism and Harassment at Work. Organization Science, 26(3): 774 – 793 [pdf]
  3. Zadro, L., Williams, K.D., Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by computer lowers belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 560–567. [link]
  4. Twyman, K.A., Saylor, C.F., Saia, D., Macias, M.M., Taylor, L.A., Spratt, E. (2010) Bullying and ostracism experiences in children with special health care needs. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 31: 1–8. [pdf]
  5. Kross, E., Berman, M.G., Mischel, W., Smith, E.E., Wager, T.D. (2011). Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108: 6270–6275. [pdf]
  6. Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D., Williams, K.D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302: 290–292. [pdf]
  7. Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: a common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Science. 8: 294–300. [link]
  8. Watson-Jones, R.E., Whitehouse, H., Legare, C.H. (2015). In-Group Ostracism Increases High-Fidelity Imitation in Early Childhood. Psychological Science. [pdf]
  9. Sebastian, C., Viding, E., Williams, K.D., Blakemore, S.J. (2010). Social brain development and the affective consequences of ostracism in adolescence. Brain Cognition, 72: 134–145. [link]
  10. Kloep, M. (1999). Love is all you need? Focusing on adolescents’ life concerns
    from an ecological point of view. Journal of Adolescence, 22: 49–63. [link]
  11. Pharo, H., Gross, J., Richardson, R., Hayne, H. (2011). Age-related changes in the effect of ostracism. Social Influence, 6: 22–38. [link]

Default Image
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath

I have a confession to make: I was an avid “visual learner” all through grade school and high school. No matter the assignment or the subject, if I could make a diagram or chart about it, I would. I even dabbled with verbal learning in elementary school: my Dad and I would make up songs about the words that would be on my weekly spelling tests and sing them in the car on the way to school.

So did my penchant for (sometimes overly creative) learning styles help? Possibly, but not for the reasons you’d think.

Over the past few years, new research within neuroscience and psychology has begun to show that teaching in a person’s preferred learning style actually has no positive effect on their learning. That doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy one style more than another, but contrary to popular belief, enjoying it more does not appear to strongly predict success.

You’re not alone

When I first discovered the mounting evidence against catering to preferred learning styles, I was pretty surprised. My entire educational life had been structured around this idea. It seems almost intuitive to believe in such a concept. Not only do most of us have a desire to learn and to be seen as unique, but we also have a preference for how we receive information. On top of that, many of our teachers reinforced these ideas almost daily in their lesson plans.

But who can blame them?

With pressure from parents who understandably want their children to receive a tailored education, and teachers who are sympathetic to each and every students’ needs, preferred learning styles – or more specifically, the idea that we learn better when the information we are receiving is customized to our preferred way of learning – fills these voids. Not only are students receiving information in a unique way, but teachers also begin to feel that the information they are teaching is finally being comprehended by all of their students.

In 2014, an international survey1 found that 96% of teachers all over the world believed in the value of teaching to preferred learning styles. That’s an amazingly high number that publishers and corporations have taken advantage of: with hundreds of popular books on the topic, companies trying to sell you ways to measure learning styles, teacher training programs, and international associations, no wonder so many people believe in this idea. This idea seems so true, that many researchers have spent tremendous effort exploring it, while others seem to simply believe it without sufficient evidence – in the past five years alone more than 360 scientific papers have cited learning styles.

The evidence is clear

In 2008, a team of cognitive neuroscientists decided to review all of the scientific evidence that had been gathered or published about learning styles – both for and against the concept. The results were clear: teaching in a person’s preferred learning style had no beneficial effect on their learning. As one of the researchers put it 2, “the contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing”.

So, is there any evidence that supports the learning style concept? A little, but very few studies 2 have produced significant results. While studies in support of the preferred learning style idea should be able to show that people of one preferred learning style learn better when taught in this specific way, most of the evidence 3 actually contradicts this.

When researchers attempted to compare two groups, and therefore two preferred learning styles, in order to see the rate at which these groups learned the same material, they often found that both groups performed better when they were both taught in one particular style, rather than what they preferred. Why is this? This research suggests that the most effective way for people to learn is actually based on the material being taught to them and not how they prefer to learn. Imagine if you were only ever taught long division verbally, or if you attempted to learn a new language with only picture cards – things would be pretty difficult.

Evidence has shown that the questionnaires used are unreliable, mainly because they rely heavily on an individual’s self-reporting. While individuals may think that they are learning better when taught in their preferred style, the results actually show that there is a very poor correlation with this and their actual performance. Interestingly, a more accurate predictor of someone’s performance is actually their performance on past tests and assignments, rather than their learning style aligning with your teaching style.

Learning Styles, Multiple Representations & Individual Differences

So why are so many so attached to the idea of learning styles? And why did I believe that making up songs with my dad was so much more effective than reading a textbook?

One answer, it seems, is not the difference between the way we learn, but the ways in which we are similar. Research has shown that most typically developing people will respond strongly to multiple modes of teaching. In other words, if a proponent of learning styles decides to teach the same material using visuals, activities, and words, everyone in the class is likely to benefit from the multiple representations of information. This is a concept explored more fully by many research groups and non-profits, such as CAST’s Universal Design for Learning Platform.

In other words, rather than trying to tailor curriculum to each student’s “learning style”, it may be more helpful (and efficient) to incorporate some of the strategies that are likely to improve learning for all students – such as getting students to explain concepts to themselves or aloud (see my previous article here). Research has shown that almost all students learn from a mixture of verbal and visual, rather than one alone. Other research 4 has found that learning can be improved by combining different activities that relate to the same subject, such as having students participate in something creative like drawing or painting along with more passive tasks like reading. In their book, Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn, Hattie and Yates emphasize this in the following passage:

“We are all visual learners, and we all are auditory learners, not just some of us. Laboratory studies reveal that we all learn when the inputs we experience are multi-modal or conveyed through different media.”

While there’s very little evidence that supports the benefits of matching your teaching style to your students’ preferred learning style, there is evidence that shows that tailoring teaching style in other ways may improve learning. For example, one study 5 found that those new to a subject learn better from studying examples, whereas individuals with more knowledge of the subject learn better by solving problems themselves.

There are countless other factors that may have an impact on an individual’s learning trajectory (see Center for Individual Opportunity), often referred to as “Individual Differences”. Unfortunately, these differences can’t be accounted for based on preferred learning styles, and by releasing our grip on this myth, we can work towards building strategies based on more compelling evidence.

Teach to students’ intellectual weaknesses, rather than their strengths

Most importantly, in many cases, this isn’t just a harmless misunderstanding. Perpetuating the myth of preferred learning styles could actually harm students more than it can help them. One important point Scott Lilienfield and colleagues have emphasized in their book 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology, is that the concept of preferred learning style actually “encourages teachers to teach to students’ intellectual strengths rather than their weaknesses.”

This suggests an alternative approach: rather than catering to how students think they learn best; challenge them! Allow students to focus on their shortcomings rather than to avoid them. The differences between students aren’t defined by their learning style, but are determined by their prior knowledge and the patterns they recognize while learning.

And while it is still important for teachers to be attentive to the individual and unique differences of each student, evidence on learning styles suggests that they aren’t producing the results students deserve. Rather than putting all of your effort into a teaching method that isn’t supported by science, use your limited resources to use methods that have been proven effective, such as analogies 6 or praising effort instead of intelligence 7.

And most importantly, don’t stop tailoring your teaching style! Just do it wisely.

 

References

  1. Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience Nat Rev Neurosci,15(12), 817-824. [Paper]
  2. Pashler, H., Mcdaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,9(3), 105-119. [Paper]
  3. Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences,16(4), 321-335. [Paper]
  4. Schmeck, A., Mayer, R., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V., & Leutner, D. (2014). Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 275-286 [Paper]
  5. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The Expertise Reversal Effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31 [Paper]
  6. Glynn, S. M. (1991) Explaining Science Concepts: A Teaching-with-Analogies Model in Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (Eds). The Psychology of learning science. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. [Book]
  7. Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent Praise to 1- to 3-Year-Olds Predicts Children’s Motivational Frameworks 5 Years Later. Child Development,84(5), 1526-1541 [Paper]

 

Default Image
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath

idea

Want to help kids learn? Ask them to explain what they are learning in their own words!

New research1 has found that when children are asked to come up with explanations (even just to themselves) while learning, they are able to connect new ideas with prior cause-and-effect knowledge better than those who are not encouraged to explore and explain. By forming their own generalizations, children can more efficiently understand new information.

Children begin to develop cause-and-effect thinking skills as early as eight months of age2. Cause-and-effect thinking, or causality, allows us to make inferences and reason about things that happen around us. Causality helps us understand things as simple as “If I don’t water the plants they’ll die” to things more complicated such as other people’s intentions and behaviors. When children understand cause and effect, they also begin to understand the operation of mechanisms, which allows them to understand causal relationships. When a child asks “why” for the first time, this question more than likely coincides with their first attempt to explain something. Asking “why” helps children fill in the blanks (so to speak), allowing them to fully understand both the cause and effects and mechanisms of the new situation or information they’ve been presented with3.

Educational research has found that self-explaining (explaining to oneself or to another person) can be more effective for learning than other activities – such as repeatedly reading over materials or thinking aloud4,5. While most of the research on self-explanation has focused primarily on older children and adults, there are some studies on younger children that have shown the positive effects it can have. For example, research with elementary school children has shown that in comparison to other learning activities, such as solving practice problems, self-explanation was shown to enhance children’s conceptual and procedural knowledge about a given task or concept6.

Why is it important to focus on younger children?

Research has shown that self-explanation is really only beneficial when we are presented with new concepts that we aren’t well informed of7. Because young children are just beginning to experience the world, they stand to benefit most from self-explanation.

In order to examine the benefits of explanation-based learning further, Christine Legare and Tania Lombrozo implemented two studies. In each study, they presented preschoolers (age 3 to 6) with a mechanical toy made up of colorful, interlocking gears that had a propeller on one end and a crank on the other. After a researcher showed the children how the toy worked, each child was given an opportunity to take the machine apart and to put it back together again. Children were then asked to either observe or explain the mechanisms of the toy (in study one) or were asked to describe or explain the machine to the researcher (in study two).

Mechanical Toy used in Legare and Lombrozo’s (2014) study
Mechanical Toy used in Legare and Lombrozo’s (2014) study

Both studies found that the children (regardless of age) who were asked to explain the toy outperformed the other children in understanding the cause and effect operations of the toy. For example, if a part was unknowingly removed from the toy by the researcher, the children in the explain condition were able to figure out and understand why this was happening more so than children in the other groups.

The children who were asked to explain were also better at rebuilding the toy and were able to transfer this new knowledge to other learning tasks presented to them. However, they found that explaining does not improve memory for details: children who were asked to explain were often mistaken when asked to recall the toy’s size, shapes, and colors.

Why did the children who were asked to explain excel in understanding the toy’s functionality, but fail when it came to remembering its details? Legare suggest that the process of explaining causes the child to focus more on understanding the cause-and-effect mechanisms rather than the physical details. Self-explanation may help kids learn by forcing their minds to grapple with the underlying concepts, causing them to discover connections that they may have otherwise overlooked.

Previous research by Legare and colleagues8, 9 has found that preschoolers are especially prone to attempt self-explanation when they encounter new information that contradicts their worldview. When children are presented with inconsistent outcomes, it prompts them to think about all possibilities (even unseen and hidden mechanisms). The explanations they come up with then inspire them to want to actively test their hypotheses. These results were observed in children as young as two years old10.

While much is still unknown about the role of explanation in early childhood learning, it’s clear that explaining may be valuable because it makes us aware of what we don’t yet understand. These studies have also shown that self-explanation engages young learners in ways that other cognitive process do not (such as observing and describing).

“Understanding the ways in which explanation does — and does not — improve learning speaks not only to questions about the development of cause-and-effect knowledge, but also to questions about how to most effectively harness explanation for use in educational interventions,” Legare says.

When teachers and parents ask children to explain “why” and “how” something works, they are giving the child the opportunity to think like scientists.

This process is effective both in the classroom and at home. By allowing children to gather evidence through exploration and understand it through explanation, it provides them with insights into the development of scientific reasoning – allowing them to harness their potential for scientific reasoning and improve their critical thinking skills8. Additionally, because children may explore more when asked for explanations regularly, informal learning environments like children’s museums are a great place for children to hone in on these abilities.

So the next time your child or student asks you to explain “why” or “how” when learning something new – ask them! You’ll be helping them more than you (or they) realize.

 

References 

  1. Legare C.H. and Lombrozo T. (2014). Selective effects of explanation on learning during early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 126: 198-212. [Article]
  2. Sobel, D. M., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2006). Blickets and babies: The development of causal reasoning in toddlers and infants. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1103-1115. [Article]
  3. Keil, F. C. (2012). Running on empty? How folk science gets by with less. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 329-334. [Article]
  4. Fonseca, B. & Chi, M. T. (2011). The self-explanation effect: A constructive learning activity. In Mayer, R. & Alexander, P. (Eds.), The Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 296-321). New York, NY: Routledge Press. [Book]
  5. Lombrozo, T. (2012). Explanation and abductive inference. J. Holyoak and R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 260-276). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Article]
  6. McEldoon, K., Durkin, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Is self-explanation worth the time? A comparison to additional practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 615- 632 [Article]
  7. Rittle-Johnson, B., Saylor, M., and Swygert, K.E. (2008). Learning from explaining: does it matter if mom is listening? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 100(3): 215-24. [Article]
  8. Legare CH, Gelman SA, and Wellman HM. (2010). Inconsistency with prior knowledge triggers children’s causal explanatory reasoning. Child Development, 81(3): 929-44. [Article]
  9. Legare C. 2012. Exploring explanation: explaining inconsistent evidence informs exploratory, hypothesis-testing behavior in young children. Child Development, 83(1): 173-85. [Article]
  10. Legare, C. H. (2014), The Contributions of Explanation and Exploration to Children’s Scientific Reasoning. Child Development Perspectives, 8: 101–106. [Article]

 

Further Reading

  • Grotzer, T. (2003). Learning to Understand the Forms of Causality Implicit in Scientifically Accepted Explanations. Studies in Science Education, 39(1), 1-74 [Article]
  • Grotzer, T. (2012). Learning Causality in a Complex World: Understandings of Consequence. [Book]

Default Image
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath

Girl Math

“It’s OK, some people just aren’t good at math”.

We’ve all heard this before. In fact, some of us have probably even thought it about ourselves (“I’m just not a math person”, “I’ve just never been great at spelling”).

But there’s a problem with this mindset: Not only is it not true, it’s hurting our children.

By believing the myth that talent is hardwired in our brains, and that some of us are naturally better at certain things than others, it keeps kids (and us, as parents and educators) from knowing that with a little hard work, dedication, and self-confidence they can improve.

The idea that math ability, or any ability for that matter, is an immalleable trait perpetuates the harmful myth that intelligence and creativity are mostly genetic. Research has pointed to two orientations of individual’s conceptions of ability: incremental orientation and entity orientation, sometimes also thought of as Fixed and Growth mindset1. Students who lean towards a more incremental orientation believe that intelligence is malleable and can improve with effort. On the other hand, individuals whose ideas of intelligence align with an entity orientation believe that their abilities are fixed; you are born with a certain level of intelligence and no amount of effort can change this.

In other words, incremental orientation suggests that what you do affects what you know. Entity orientation suggests that who you are affects what you can do.

An entity orientation can lead to students giving up in subjects that they aren’t excelling in, likely because they believe that they are inherently incapable of excelling and any efforts to improve would be wasted energy2. Another study found that women who believed their math abilities were fixed and unchangeable showed less interest in math related tasks and were therefore more likely to “fall prey to the gender gap that exists in mathematics fields”3. In this way, an entity orientation may make people more susceptible to “stereotype threat”, or the tendency to believe that you are more or less prone to something because of the innate abilities of the groups that you are a part of.

A recent nationwide, longitudinal study also supports these findings, suggesting that both male and female students who believed that their abilities were fixed genetic traits may keep them from later majoring in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields4. One author of the study suggests that “students may need to hear that encountering difficulty during classwork is expected and normal,” and that anyone can be good at math, or any other subjects they’re struggling with. This mentality, what scientists refer to as the “growth mindset”, seems to equally benefit both boys and girls5 and suggest that teaching this message in schools will help encourage more girls to pursue careers in STEM fields.

However, there are still a disparagingly low number of women in STEM fields, with men outnumbering women 3 to 16. Recent research is pointing to one possibility: academics that believe in the concept of innate talent may lead to bias. Findings suggest that the more professors thought that innate talent was necessary to succeed within certain fields (namely philosophy, music, economics, and math), the less likely women and African Americans would dominate that field7. This mindset may be limiting people’s opportunities before they even get started. In other words, it may be just as important for teachers, professors, and leaders to believe that students have an incremental orientation as it is for the students themselves.

So how can we fix this? For starters, we can focus on teaching people of all ages the science behind a growth mindset. The first step towards incorporating these ideas in the classroom is making sure that teachers themselves believe them. Innate talent is a myth and our brains are constantly developing, even into adulthood8. This is evident in the dynamic memories of New York City taxi drivers9 or even playing games like Tetris (which research has found may thicken the cortex, or outer layer of the brain, in adolescence10). And this concept isn’t only relevant to students who are struggling; even students who advance in math can improve their cognitive abilities11.

Teaching students these facts about the brain can actually help them learn. A new study has found that students who struggle in school actually improve once they’ve been taught that intelligence isn’t fixed and can advance with hard work12. Researchers have called this concept “mindset interventions” – students spend around 45 minutes reading and writing about articles on the brain’s ability to grow and develop. While improvement in grades is only around one-tenth of a letter grade, this is still really impressive considering students spend less than an hour on these ‘interventions’. The key to these interventions is a supportive teacher who “encourages students to take advantage of such opportunities”12.

Psychologist Carol Dweck and colleagues have shown that experiences as early as elementary school often reinforce mental habits that support the myth that intelligence is a fixed, genetic trait13. She has found that children come to an unconscious assumption that tasks given at school (such as quizzes, in-class assignments, or homework) are actually opportunities to measure how smart they are rather than innovative ways to challenge their intelligence. For these children, performing poorly on these assignments shows that they lack intelligence rather than being an indicator of how much more they have to learn14. Because they believe that the main reason behind these tasks is to measure their competence, these kids try to pick the easiest task to complete, which unfortunately means that they aren’t challenging their intelligence and often lose out on the full benefits of learning.

Dweck and colleagues have also shown ways to improve kids’ outlooks about their intellectual ability. They explained to a group of at-risk junior high school students that intelligence is highly malleable and can be developed with hard work. Most importantly, they explained to these students that they were in charge of their intelligence and with hard work could guide their brain’s improvement during the learning process. What they found was that convincing students that they could make themselves smarter made them work harder and achieve higher scores. This effect was seen even more so in students who initially believed that intelligence was an innate, genetic trait. Dweck reported some very emotional stories of junior high school boys who were “reduced to tears by the news that their intelligence was substantially under their control”15.

While these kids felt as though they were given a second chance, they actually had the right tools all along. Teachers face many challenges that are outside of their control and that may impede the learning process; but this is one thing every educator can offer their students that may have tremendous impact on their lives. By adopting a growth mindset themselves, educators can model, nurture, and share the value of an incremental orientation. It’s important to start explaining to children while their young that they have full control of their futures, and intellectual abilities.

Just because something doesn’t come easily or naturally doesn’t mean they aren’t smart or can never be good at math – all it really means is that they may have to keep trying.

References & Further Reading

  1. Linehan, P. L. (1998). Conceptions of ability: Nature and impact across content areas. Purdue University: PhD Thesis. [Dissertation]
  2. Burnette, J.L., O’Boyle, E.H., VanEpps, E.M., Pollack, J.M., Finkel, E.J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), p. 655-701. [Meta-Analysis]
  3. Burkley, M., Parker, J., Stermer, S.P., & Burkley, E. (2010). Trait beliefs that make women vulnerable to math disengagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(2), p. 234-238. [Journal Article]
  4. Nix, S., Perez-Felkner, L., & Thomas, K. (2015). Perceived Mathematical Ability under Challenge: A Longitudinal Perspective on Sex Segregation among STEM Degree Fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(530). [Journal Article]
  5. Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), p. 700-717. [Journal Article]
  6. Miller, D. & Wai, J. (2015). The bachelor’s to Ph.D. STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men: a 30 year analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(37). [Journal Article]
  7. Leslie, S., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347 (6219), p. 262-265. [Journal Article]
  8. May, A. (2011). Experience-dependent structural plasticity in the adult human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(10), p. 475-482. [Journal Article]
  9. Maguire, E.A., Woollett, K., & Spiers, H. J. (2006). London Taxi Drivers and Bus Drivers: A Structural MRI and Neuropsychological Analysis. Hippocampus 16, p. 1091–1101. [Journal Article]
  10. Haier, R., Karama, S., Leyba, L., & Jung, R. (2009). MRI Assessment Of Cortical Thickness And Functional Activity Changes In Adolescent Girls Following Three Months Of Practice On A Visual-spatial Task. BMC Research Notes, 174. [Report]
  11. Miller, D. & Halpern, D.F. (2013). Can spatial training improve long-term outcomes for gifted STEM undergraduates? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, p.141-152. [Journal Article]
  12. Yeager, D., & Walton, G. (2011). Social-Psychological Interventions in Education: They’re Not Magic. Review of Educational Research, 267-301. [Journal Article]
  13. Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books: Random House, NY. [Book]
  14. Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The Competitive Imperative of Learning. Harvard Business Review. [Web Article]
  15. Nisbett, R. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count.W. Norton & Co: New York, NY. [Book]

 

Default Image
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath
Ashle Bailey-Gilreath

Story Time in a Classroom

Science seems to always challenge our intuitive understanding of the world. Even as an adult, I am constantly confronted with new scientific advancements and discoveries that don’t always line up with my preconceived notions. These ideas, be it physics or biology, can be considered counterintuitive in that they often present themselves in ways that are counter to one’s intuitive notions1).

One of the most challenging and powerful of these concepts, the theory of evolution by natural selection, also happens to be one of the most rewarding; its ability to explain the complexity of life on earth, and even (to a certain extent) human nature, is unprecedented. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most controversial, especially in the United States. Reports suggest that only 60% of American’s believe in evolution, and even some of those who claim to don’t seem to fully grasp its implications 2.

Why is the concept of evolution so hard to understand and accept?

Recent research lead by Deborah Kelemen3,4 and Will Gervais 5 is helping to explain this. Previous research has shown that belief in evolution can be predicted by many demographic and cultural factors, such as religious ideology 6, political affiliation 7, and even what country you live in 8. However, research within the fields of psychology and the cognitive science of religion are beginning to uncover the cognitive mechanisms that underlie this phenomena. This new research also hints at some important strategies: we should begin teaching children how to grasp concepts like evolution while they are young, rather than waiting until they are teenagers.

Regardless of their religious beliefs, adults, and especially children, are inclined to see design and purpose everywhere9,10. This tendency may be one of the main contributors as to why individuals who favor intelligent design or creationism are reluctant to incorporate evidence for evolution into their worldview. Kelemen has documented this way of thinking, termed “promiscuous teleology”, in children as young as preschool, though it is an inclination we all share throughout the lifespan. She has found in previous research that when children were asked what the purpose of a sharp rock was, they responded with purposeful statements like “Rocks are jagged so animals can scratch themselves”11. By elementary school (ages 6-10), kids begin to develop their own “folk biology” theories (that is, how people classify and reason about the organic world) about the world around them, giving explanations for biological facts in terms of intention and design.

This can be seen in children’s design-driven descriptions for the purpose for a giraffe’s long neck – so they can reach the leaves at the top of the trees. This suggests that believing in creationism may be a very natural tendency, and that introducing evolutionary frameworks in childhood may help lay the groundwork for balancing promiscuous teleology with analytical thinking.

To see whether young children could understand the mechanism of natural selection before the alternative intentional-design ideas had fully set in, Dr. Kelemen and colleagues presented 5- to 8-year-olds with a 10-page picture book that illustrated an example of natural selection with a fictional character (the “pilosas”). In the book, the pilosas are described as insect eating mammals, with some of them having thick trunks and some with thin. The children are then told about a sudden shift in climate that drives all of the insects into narrow underground tunnels. Because of this, the thin-trunked pilosas were the only ones to be able to reach the insects, causing those with thick trunks to die off. Therefore, the next generation of pilosas all had thin trunks.

Before they heard this story, the children were asked to explain why a different group of fictional animals had a particular trait. Most of them, consistent with previous research, gave explanations based on intentional design. However, after they heard the “pilosas” story, the answers they gave were very different. They began to understand the basic tenants of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Even three months later, their understanding and analytical explanations persisted.
While Dr. Kelemen’s research sheds light on our natural tendencies to think of evolution as a counterintuitive concept, there are still questions as to how the differences between individuals (such as religiosity, political orientation, or other demographic factors) produce different beliefs about evolution, and how these individual differences interact with culture and environment.

New research by Will Gervais has found an association between cognitive style and beliefs about evolution. Cognitive style refers to two distinct mental systems that everyone uses for processing information: one system provides quick and effortless intuitive responses, where as the other system relies on more effortful and analytical processing.

In an experiment with hundreds of Kentucky undergraduates, Gervais presented participants with a common task to measure the extent to which they would engage in immediate, intuitive judgments or more explicit, analytical deliberations (which can sometimes override the initial intuitive response). He found a significant relationship between the degree to which individuals would engage in more analytical styles of thinking and their endorsement of evolution. These results still held significant even after controlling for religious beliefs and political conservatism.

Gervais’ research presents three possibilities: (1) the more an individual engages in reflective, analytical thinking, the more likely it is that they will essentially ‘override’ their natural intuitive responses when presented with evidence, thus making concepts like evolution easier to grasp, (2) some individuals may naturally have stronger intuitive responses than others, which, though beneficial in some situations, may make it particularly challenging to successfully override these teleological thoughts, and (3) an individual’s cognitive style (analytical or intuitive) may be affected by cultural input. Within this third possibility, for individuals who grow up in an environment where intellectual design and creationism are more widely accepted, overriding these natural intuitions isn’t just about implementing more analytical, reflective thinking, it also involves overriding the norms of one’s community and upbringing.

This research helps to explain why counterintuitive concepts like evolution aren’t just controversial for social or scientific reasons, but are also controversial for cognitive ones. It also helps us understand the most recent Gallup poll results, which found that nearly half of the US population rejects evolution, with creationism remaining stable for the past 30 years12*.

There seems to be a constant struggle over teaching evolution in U.S. schools13, which makes it even harder for educators in anti-evolution policy states to take action. However, the above research suggests that educators and parents should start to introduce these ideas to children when they are young, rather waiting until high school, and organizations, like the National Center for Science Education, are working to support communities in this endeavor.

Deborah Keleman has shown that children as young as 5 can grasp these concepts (and retain the information); they just need to be taught through innovative ways like storytelling. Over the past few years some excellent evolutionary children’s books have come out on the market, such as Great Adaptations, Grandmother Fish, and Our Family Tree to name a few. These can be excellent tools for teaching these concepts, second only to applying some imagination and having children create their own species and animals like Dr. Keleman’s “pilosas”. These practices should be written into the curriculum for each grade, allowing the concepts to be reinforced each year.

Counterintuitive concepts like evolution can be challenging to grasp for anyone. By taking a deeper look at the underlying cognitive reasons for this, we can improve our future approaches to science education and policy, and work towards better understanding how our social and cultural environments affect our minds — and more importantly, our children’s minds.

*It is important to note that science deals with evidence and makes no claims on the existence of God, and while many people believe evolution to be consistent with their religious beliefs12, it is still essential for public schools to focus on and implement only those theories and concepts that are supported by evidence and analytical thinking structures. Personal beliefs such as religion can then be handled and discussed outside of the classroom.

References & Further Reading

  1. Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Instructional consequences of students’ knowledge about physical phenomena. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.),Cognitive structure and conceptual change(pp. 61-90). New York: Academic Press. [Book]
  2. Pew Research Center. (2013). Public Views on Evolution. [Survey Report]
  3. Kelemen, et al. (2014) Young Children Can Be Taught Basic Natural Selection Using a Picture Storybook Intervention. Psychological Science, p.1-10 [Paper]
  4. Kelemen, D. (2012). Teleological minds: How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. In K. S. Rosengren, Brem, Evans & Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution. Oxford: Oxford University  [Book Chapter]
  5. Gervais, W. (2015) Override the controversy: Analytic thinking predicts endorsement of evolution, Cognition, 142, p.312-321 [Paper]
  6. Pew Research Center. (2009). Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution. [Survey Report]
  7. Pew Research Center. (2013). Public Views on Evolution. [Survey Report]
  8. Miller, J.D., Scott, E.C., & Okamoto, S., (2006) Public Acceptance of Evolution, Science, 313 (5788), 765-766. [Paper]
  9. Kelemen, D. & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111(1), 138–143. [Paper]
  10. Kelemen, D. (2004). Are children ‘intuitive theists’? Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science, 15(5), 295–301. [Paper]
  11. Kelemen, D. (1999). Why are rocks pointy? children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1440-1452. [Paper]
  12. (2014). Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design. [Report]
  13. Kopplin, Z. (2014). Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America’s creationists. The Guardian. [Web Article]