Skip to main content

Category Archives: L&B Blog

Older posts
Newer posts
Teens Who Recognize Their Emotions Manage Stress Better. We Can Help (Maybe).
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
August-15-2019

Teens Who Recognize Their Emotions Manage Stress Better. We Can Help (Maybe).

Read More

Why are teens so adolescent?

Why are they so infuriatingly wonderful? So wonderfully infuriating?

Researchers have offered an intriguing suggestion:

Children can tell you what they’re feeling with confidence. They believe they can experience only one emotion at a time, and so they label it with certainty.

Adults can also tell you what they’re feeling with confidence. They know they can experience many emotions at once, and they have lots of experience figuring out the combination that they feel right now.

Adolescents — sometimes — don’t really know what they’re feeling. Like adults, they know they can experience many emotions. But unlike adults, they don’t yet have much experience describing combinations. And so, unlike children, they’re uncertain what they’re feeling.

We’ve blogged about this research here.

Individual Differences Matter

So, adolescents don’t distinguish among complex emotions as well as adults do.

Of course: individual teens develop along different paths. Some differentiate among emotions better than others.

Researchers at Emory wanted to know: do those differences have meaningful effects?

In particular, they asked this intricate question: does a teen’s ability to distinguish among negative emotions have an effect on their experience of depression?

In other words: do the hassles and stresses of life lead to depression more often among teens who distinguish among negative emotions less skillfully?

To answer this question, Dr. Lisa Starr and her team interviewed 225+ teens, and then had them fill out online diaries for several days. They then followed up with those teens up to a year-and-a-half later.

In other words, they got LOTS of data spread out over LONG periods of time.

Given all the variables at play, it’s not surprising that the results here are complex: probably too complex to explore in detail. (Click the link if you want the nitty-gritty.)

But the headline is clear: teens who distinguish among negative emotions effectively can manage life stress better than those who don’t.

To say that the other way around: teens who struggle to distinguish among negative emotions are likelier to experience depression as result of life’s hassles and stresses.

What Can We Do?

Students benefit from skill in distinguishing among negative emotions. In fact, those who lack those skills face a higher chance of depression.

So: what can we do to promote those skills?

I’ve asked lead researcher Dr. Starr that question. She pointed me to this study, which suggests that mindfulness training might have some benefits.

That suggestion lines up with this recent meta-analysis, showing that mindfulness can indeed help people manage depression.

Of course: we shouldn’t rely too heavily on just one study. I hope this question leads to greater exploration soon.

Given the scary numbers about adolescent depression, we should do all we can to manage this problem.

Obsessed with Working Memory: SOLUTIONS!
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
August-08-2019

Obsessed with Working Memory: SOLUTIONS!

Read More

At the beginning of July, we started an in-depth series of posts about working memory.

For starters, we learned how to define it: “a short-term memory capacity that selects, holds, reorganizes, and combines relevant information.” (Handy acronym: SHREK.)

We then focused on its key features. It’s essential for classroom learning. It’s alarmingly small. And we can’t make it bigger (artificially).

For all those reasons, teachers need to be experts at anticipating WM overload. For example: look out for these Dark Sides of the Force.

And, we need recognize WM overload when it happens. (That student who forgot his question while his hand was in the air? That was probably a working memory problem.)

Today’s task: start SOLVING all those problems that we anticipated and recognized.

Solutions, Part I: Rely on Long-Term Memory

First: connect new information to information that students already have in their long-term memory.

Why does this strategy work? Because ideas and facts in LTM require much less working-memory processing than information coming in from the outside world.

And so: if a new idea resembles something in LTM, then that pre-existing knowledge acts as a kind of cognitive crutch.

For example, whenever I teach my students about gerunds, I teach them the Beyoncé rule:

If you like it then you should have put an -ing on it.

My students already have that catchy tune in their heads. By attaching a new grammatical rule (“all gerunds end with ‘-ing’ “) to that catchy tune, I reduce its WM demands.

As a bonus, I also make them laugh.

Second: explicitly teach core facts and processes.

“Rote memorization” of “random facts” has gotten a bad reputation. It seems so not-21st-century.

Alas, we can’t think without knowledge.* If our students have already learned the foundational ideas, definitions, dates, and processes before they start grappling with complex cognitive work, they’re much more likely to succeed.

Why? Because all that prior knowledge in long-term memory reduces WM load.

Solutions, Part II: Spread Cognitive Work Over Time

This solution is so helpfully straightforward.

If a lesson plan overwhelms WM because it includes too much information RIGHT NOW, then don’t include all of it right now. Spread it out.

In some cases, that simply means reorganizing the lesson plan. Let students practice the first topic they learned before they move on to the next one.

Once they’re comfortable with a particular mental process, they’re ready to take more ideas on board. (Barak Rosenshine, I’m looking at you.)

In other cases, you might reconsider if this information needs to be included immediately.

Are you students struggling with several instructions? Spread them out.

Here’s a handy strategy: give one instruction, and wait for all students to complete it before giving the next. (I got this advice at the very first Learning and the Brain conference I attended. Pure magic.)

Note, too, how exceptions can be postponed.

In French, “all nouns that end in -ette are feminine.” Knowing that rule reduces students’ WM load: they have fewer variables to juggle as they tinker with adjectives and pronouns.

That rule, however, has an exception: “squelette” is masculine. But — this is crucial — my students don’t need to know that right now. Why would they need the word “skeleton”?They’re not watching CSI Paris.

So, I can reduce WM load by leading with the rule and postponing exceptions until they’re necessary. (You can alert your students that exceptions might show up later, so they don’t lose faith in your expertise.)

If you anticipate or recognize WM overload, ask yourself if you can put off some of this cognitive work until later in the lesson plan…or, later in the syllabus.

Solutions, Part III: Make Cognitive Work Auditory AND Visual

Schools rely a great deal on auditory processing. That is: students listen to us — and to each other — talking.

However, working memory has both auditory and visual processing capacity. If we use only half of it, we’re leaving substantial cognitive resources untapped. It’s like asking students to carry a heavy box using only one arm. Two arms would be So Much Easier.

This approach leads to some very straightforward strategies. Verbal instructions take up lots of working memory capacity. Written instructions take up less — because students don’t have to “select” or “hold” them.

Oliver Caviglioli has just written a genre-defining book on combining visual and verbal information: Dual Coding with Teachers. If you want to focus on this teaching strategy to reduce WM load, you should get your copy ASAP.

Solutions, Part IV: CUT

Let’s take this hypothetical:

You look at your lesson plan, and anticipate a great deal of working-memory overload. So, you start using these strategies.

You find ways to connect new information to ideas students already know (solutions, part I).

You find ways to spread information out over time (part  II).

You move lots of WM labor into the visual realm (part III).

And yet, you still worry the working-memory load might be too high. What can you do?

You’ve really got only one choice: take stuff out of the lesson plan — and maybe the syllabus. You’ve got to cut.

That’s a troubling answer. We don’t want to cut, because we want our students to learn it all. (And, we might be required to cover lots of things.)

But, here’s the reality: if my lesson plan/syllabus overwhelms my students’ working memory, then their cognitive processes will shut down. That is: their brains will cut stuff out automatically.

If I know that’s going to happen, the only responsible course of action is to make those cutting decisions for them. After all, because I’m the teacher, I know better which parts can be cut without long-term harm.

The Good News about Part IV

By the way: there is some hidden good news in this strategy. If we cut material from an overstuffed syllabus today, then our students are much likelier to learn the remaining ideas than they were before.

As a result, they’ll be better positioned to learn the ideas that come later in the curriculum.

As is so often the case: less might be more. That is, less information early in the curriculum might lead to more learning by the end of the year. Why? Because “less” allowed students to use their working memory more effectively, and hence create more long-term memories.

Concluding Thoughts

I’ve named several strategies here, and given quick examples.

However, to get the most from these ideas, you will adapt them to your own circumstances. As you’ve heard me say before: “don’t just do this thing; instead, think this way.”

That is: once you’ve started THINKING about working memory in your classroom with your students and your curriculum, you’ll see your own way to apply each strategy most effectively.

No one else can tell us exactly how to do it. Using our teacherly insight, wisdom, and experience, we will shape those ideas to fit the world in which we teach.

In sum: once we anticipate and recognize working memory overload, we’ve got many (MANY!) strategies to reduce that load. And, those strategies are flexible enough to work in every classroom. The result: our students learn more.

* If you’re skeptical about the importance of prior factual knowledge, you’re not alone. But, the research here is compelling. Check out

Why Don’t Students Like School? by Daniel Willingham

Seven Myths of Education by Daisy Christodoulou

Making Kids Cleverer by David Didau

Good Dog! Goodbye, Dog…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-29-2019

Good Dog! Goodbye, Dog…

Read More

The New York Times is reporting the death of Chaser, a dog who changed the way we think about canine cognition.

We used to think that dogs could learn a handful of words, especially if they got treats afterwards.

Chaser learned over 1000 words — yes, 1000. And, she learned them not because she got treats, but because she enjoyed playing.

Importantly, Chaser learned not only nouns, but verbs. Even prepositions!

The video below shows one of Chaser’s most impressive challenges. In it, Neil DeGrasse Tyson lays down several toys that Chaser already knows. He also adds a new toy: a stuffed image of Charles Darwin.

What will Chaser do when Tyson asks her to “get Darwin”? Will she be able to figure out that the name she hasn’t heard before goes with the toy she hasn’t seen before?

Check it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omaHv5sxiFI

 

When Parents Teach Reading, Do They Also Promote Math Skills?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-28-2019

When Parents Teach Reading, Do They Also Promote Math Skills?

Read More

Parents begin teaching children well before schooling starts. Obviously.

In fact, parents often teach children topics that we might consider “academic”: say, how to read, or, how to count.

Researchers might investigate this parental pre-school teaching with some reasonable hypotheses.

For instance:

Presumably, the way that parents teach reading influences the reading skills that their children develop.

Likewise, presumably, the way parents teach numbers and counting influences the math skills that their children develop.

Let’s ask a more counter-intuitive question:

Does the way that parents teach reading influence their children’s math skills?

In other words, does early teaching in one discipline influence understand in a different discipline?

That question might raise skeptical eyebrows, for a number of reasons. In particular, most research that asks this kind of transfer question comes back with a negative answer.

That is: learning in one discipline (say: playing piano) doesn’t usually make you better at another discipline (say: doing calculus).

Today’s Study

Researchers in England wanted to explore this surprising hypothesis. They had hundreds of parents fill out questionnaires. Some questions focused on parental approaches to reading:

How often does the child discuss the meaning of a story with an adult?

or

How often is the child encouraged to name letters or sound out words?

Other questions focused on parental approaches to numbers:

How often is the child encouraged to identify numbers in books or the environment?

They then tested the children on a variety of number and math skills.

Can you put two ducks in the pond?

Can you point to the number 5?

If two horses are on the path, and another joins them, how many horses are on the path?

So, what did they find? Did either of the reading approaches predict number and math skill? Did they predict those skills better than the parents’ direct focus on numbers and math?

The Results

Yes, and yes.

The parents’ approach to reading predicted math success better than the parents’ focus on numbers.

And, when comparing the two approaches to reading,

A focus on letters and sounds led to better math performance than did a focus on the meaning of the story.

In the dry language of research:

Only letter-sound interactions could predict statistically significant unique variance in counting, number transcoding and calculation.

What Should Parents Do?

This research pool is deep and complicated, and — as far as I can see — we’re not yet able to offer definitive parenting advice.

So, this study found that parental focus on letter-sound interactions improved later math skills.

But:

Self-reports aren’t always reliable (although they’re very common in this field), and

The differences weren’t all that great, and

We have many different goals when we teach children to read.

That is: if our only goal were to help students understand numbers, then this study would encourage parents to focus substantially on letter-sound relationships.

But, of course, we want our children to think about the meaning of stories too. That’s one way they learn important developmental lessons. That’s how they think about meaning in their own lives.

This study — especially if it’s confirmed by later research — encourages us to use several strategies to teach our children about words and reading.

And, it gives us reason to think that those multiple approaches will help them with books, and with numbers too.

The Mindset Controversy: Carol Dweck Speaks…
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-26-2019

The Mindset Controversy: Carol Dweck Speaks…

Read More

We’ve posted frequently about the Mindset Controversy in recent months.

The short version goes like this:

After several decades of enthusiastic reception, Dweck’s work on fixed and growth mindset has come under increasingly skeptical scrutiny.

A well-publicized meta-analysis showed only small effects — both of mindset itself, and of growth mindset interventions.

And, some non-replications have recently added new voices to the mindset-skeptical chorus. At the beginning of this month, for example, I wrote about a non-replication in Argentina.

During these months, I’ve been wondering: when would Dweck herself respond? And, what would she say?

The TES Interview

Dweck recently gave an interview to TES in which she started to answer some of these questions.

The article they’ve published is worth reading in its entirety, and I encourage you to give it a look.

I’ll mention two highlights.

First — unsurprisingly, to me — Dweck is open to the criticism she’s reading:

We have produced a body of evidence that says under these conditions this is what happened. We have not explored all the conditions that are possible.

Teacher feedback on what is working and not working is hugely valuable to us to tell us what we have not done and what we need to do. [emphasis added]

In other words: if people are trying mindset interventions and they’re not working, she wants to know about that. She’s not pretending those concerns aren’t real.

What Should Teachers Do?

Second, Dweck emphasizes that mindset interventions should not be one-time events.

Anything that happens just once — “a chart at the front of the room, a lecture where you define the two mindsets” — isn’t likely to work.

Instead, we should focus on “the policies and practices in the classroom. It is not about teaching the concept alone, it is much more about implementing practices that focus on growth and learning.” [emphasis added]

That is: if we tell students about the perils of fixed mindsets and the benefits of growth mindsets, we might feel like we’ve set them on the right path.

But: if our own language, classroom methods, and grading policies imply fixed mindsets, then that mindset mini-lesson won’t help very much.

A Brainy Analogy

Regular readers know that I’m writing several posts about working memory: what it is, why it’s important, how to use that information.

I do NOT think that teachers should tell students about working memory. If we do — ironically — we’re just using up their scarce working-memory resources.

Instead, we should use our knowledge of WM to modify and hone our teaching practices.

So, too, with mindset. Our students don’t need us to tell them the theory. They need us to act on our own knowledge of the theory — to modify and hone our teaching practices.

That approach will take more sustained effort. It might not have a dramatic, immediate effect. But, given Dweck’s four decades of research, it’s much likelier to yield the subtle, long-term benefits that enhance learning.

Full disclosure: I’m not a neutral observer in this debate. I’ve just published a book on Mindset. Your opinion about my opinion might reasonably be swayed by that knowledge.

If you’re interested in such a book, you can see Rebecca Gotlieb’s review here.

Obsessed with Working Memory: Identifying Overload
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-24-2019

Obsessed with Working Memory: Identifying Overload

Read More

To review earlier posts in this series:

You can define working memory.

You can explain why it’s so important.

You can anticipate WM overload even before it happens.

In this post, we’ll see how you can identify WM overload when it does happen.

“Wait…Back Up A Step…”

Why should you even want to identify WM overload when it happens?

After all, the last post was about anticipating it. If teachers can predict when WM overload might happen, shouldn’t we just prevent it every time?

That’s a reasonable question. The answer is: not exactly.

First: students have different levels of WM capacity. So, you might anticipate overload for most of your students. But you might not get the level of WM challenge exactly right every time.

Second: you want to nudge up against WM boundaries from time to time. Remember (as we’ve discussed in MANY posts), some level of desirable difficulty improves learning.

One way to raise difficulty is to increase the WM challenge. If you don’t test WM boundaries every now and then, you might not be challenging your students enough.

And, when you do test those boundaries, you’re likely to edge over that boundary from time to time.

Going beyond WM limits is a normal part of teaching. Doing so isn’t a terrible thing.

But: doing so without a) realizing it, and b) fixing it right away — now THAT’S a terrible thing.

“Okay, How Do I Identify WM Overload?”

The easy method. Look at the student’s face. If you see a desolately blank stare, you know what just happened: WM crash.

For fun, watch this video. Unless you’re a biology teacher, you’ll feel your WM curl up like a tiny helpless rodent. You might hear it whimper. Go look in the mirror. THAT’S the face you’re looking for.

“Are There Harder Methods?”

Sure.

Working memory is a cognitive system that holds and processes information. When students struggle to do both at the same time, THAT’S WM overload.

Some examples will clarify.

If I tell students to follow these 6 instructions, they have to a) HOLD all six instructions, and b) PROCESS them one-at-a-time. If they can’t do that, that’s WM overload.

Or,

If students can’t gather information from several websites into one Word document, they’re struggling to a) PROCESS the logic of the work their doing, while b) HOLDING their place in that logic.

Or, here’s one you see almost every day.

A student raises her hand. I say: “wait just a moment,” and finish a sentence or two. When I come back to her and say “what’s your question,” she looks abashed. Sheepishly, she admits: “I forgot.”

In this case, my student had to HOLD her question. And, she had to PROCESS new information: the sentence or two that I spoke. That combination went beyond her WM limits.

Or, this one used to make me CRAZY:

A student raises his hand. I say: “wait just a moment,” and remind the class that the paper is due Friday at 3 pm, in the box outside my office.

When I come back to that student and say “what’s your question,” he earnestly asks: “When is the paper due, and where should I turn it in?”

I used to get SO MAD at that student.

But now I know, I overloaded his WM. He was HOLDING his question so hard that he couldn’t PROCESS the information I was giving. (Joseph, if you’re reading this blog, I apologize.)

Once you start looking for them, you’ll see holding while processing problems all the time.

When you see those problems, you know that your students have run out of WM.

“Got It. Anything Else?”

Let’s do one more.

Human working memory systems necessarily interact with our attention systems.

If your students are not paying attention in a way that surprises you, you might have a WM problem, not an attention problem.

That is: if you think to yourself, “They’re usually so focused during 2nd period. I wonder what’s going on today? They’re kinda off the wall… ,” stop and consider the WM demands of the work they’re doing.

They might be exhibiting an attentional symptom of a working memory problem.

Up Next: SOLUTIONS

We’ve spent lots of time ANTICIPATING and IDENTIFYING working memory problems.

In the next two posts, I’ll FINALLY talk about solving those problems.

Naps In Schools (Just Might) Improve Classroom Learning
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-20-2019

Naps In Schools (Just Might) Improve Classroom Learning

Read More

I like a good nap. I’m not sure there’s such a thing as a bad nap.

But for this blog we must ask: can naps benefit learning?

We’ve written often about the importance of a good night’s sleep for learning. But, nap sleep might not have the same benefits as nighttime sleep.

Of course, we do have suggestive studies from the sleep lab. This study, for instance, shows that naps including both slow-wave sleep and REM sleep do boost learning.

But, what happens when we test naps in school? Do we show benefits there?

In other words: do actual students learning actual school stuff from actual teachers benefit from naps at school?

A Promising Start

This study from Brazil answers those questions with a resounding YES.

Researchers had 5th graders study either history or science during the first period of the day. Some napped during the 2nd period, while others studied another topic.

Over the course of six weeks, students learned more on the days that they napped compared to the days they didn’t. On average, they scored 10% higher on the content taught pre-nap.

This finding held true for longer naps (between 30 and 60 minutes), but not shorter naps (less than 30 minutes).

Slight Hesitations

Long-time readers know that I try to be especially skeptical about research findings that I want to be true. Because I like naps so much, I’m pushing myself to be skeptical here. For that reason, I raise these questions:

First: the study includes 24 students. That’s 24 better than 0, but it’s still quite a small study. I hope researchers follow this up with a few hundred students.

Second: I wonder about cultural influences. Does napping have a role in Brazilian culture that differs from its role others? I’m not sure why cultural influences would change the benefits of napping, but I’d like to see this research replicated in other cultures.

Third: This “nap” comes quite early in the morning: from 8:10 to 9:20 AM. I would have thought post-lunch naps to be more beneficial. The researchers explain that school begins quite early in Brazil — but, the timing of naps should clearly be studied.

School Implications

Despite my attempts at skepticism, I do think we should seriously consider investigating this question at scale. If students could in fact learn information better by sleeping at school, the benefits to both health and cognition could be dramatic.

After all, I’ve been “studying” naps on my own for years, and can report highly positive results.

Does Banning Classroom Technology Improve Engagement? Learning?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-18-2019

Does Banning Classroom Technology Improve Engagement? Learning?

Read More

We’ve got many reasons to believe that technology — whatever its benefits — can distract from learning.

Heck, according to one study, the mere presence of a cellphone reduces available working memory. YIKES.

Unsurprisingly, we often hear calls for technology-free zones in schools. Laptop bans have ardent champions.

One group of researchers wanted to know: what effect might a technology ban have on the tone of the classroom?

Would such a ban complicate the students’ relationship with the professor?

Would it affect their engagement with the material?

And, of course, would it benefit their learning?

The Study

One professor taught four sections of the same Intro to Psychology course. Cellphones and laptops were forbidden from two sections, and allowed in two.

At the end of the course, researchers measured…

Students’ rapport with the professor: for instance, students rated statements like “I want to take other courses from the professor,” or “I dislike my professor’s class.”

Students’ engagement with the class: for instance, “I make sure I study on a regular basis,” or “I stay up on all assigned readings.”

Students’ grades — on 3 exams during the term, and on their overall final grade.

That’s straightforward enough. What did they find?

The Results, Part I: Hang On to your Hat

You might predict that a technology ban would improve class tone. Freed from the distractions of technology, students can directly engage with each other, with their professor, and the material.

You might instead predict that a ban would dampen class tone. When teachers forbid things, after all, students feel less powerful.

Hutcheon, Lian, and Richard found that the tech ban had no effect on the students’ rapport with the professor.

They also found that the ban resulted in lower engagement with the class. That is, on average, students in a tech-free class said they did class readings less often, and put forth less effort.

This finding held true even for students who preferred to take notes by hand: that is, students who wouldn’t be inclined to use laptops in class anyway.

The Results, Part II: Hang On Tighter

The researchers hypothesized that students in the technology-ban sections would learn more. That is: they’d have higher grades.

That’s an easy hypothesis to offer. Other researchers have found this result consistently (famously, here).

However, Hutcheon and Co. didn’t get that result. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups.

But, they got a result that did approach significance: the technology-ban sections learned less. On the final exam, for instance, the tech-ban sections averaged an 84.30, while the tech-permitted sections averaged an 88.04.

The difference between a B and a B+ might not be statistically significant…but it sure might feel significant to those who got the B.

What On Earth Is Going On?

The researchers wonder if the tone of their tech ban led to these results. To be honest, when I read the policy on “Technology Use in the Classroom,” I thought it sounded rather harsh. (For example: “Repeated infractions will result in points lost on your final grade.”)

So, perhaps a more genially-worded ban would impede class engagement less, and allow for more learning.

But, that’s just a guess.

For me, the crucial message appears in the authors’ abstract:

“[T]hese results suggest that instructors should consider the composition of students in their course prior to implementing a technology ban in the classroom.”

In other words, technology policies can’t be the same everywhere. We teach different content to different students in different schools. And, we are different kinds of teachers. No one policy will fit everywhere.

To be crystal clear: I’m NOT saying “This study shows that a tech ban produced bad results, and so teachers should never ban technology.”

I AM saying: “This study arrived at helpfully puzzling results that contradict prior research. It therefore highlights the importance of tailoring tech policies to the narrow specifics of each situation.”

As I’ve said before, teachers should follow relevant research. And, we should draw on our best experience and judgment to apply that research to our specific context.

Critical Thoughts on Teaching Critical Thinking
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-15-2019

Critical Thoughts on Teaching Critical Thinking

Read More

Over at The Learning Scientists, Althea Need Kaminske asks if we can teach critical thinking.

Reasonably enough, she argues that it depends on our definition of “critical thinking.”

Let’s consider two different kinds:

Type I Critical Thinking: Within Disciplines

Type II Critical Thinking: Across Disciplines

Kaminske’s answer goes like this:

Teaching critical thinking within disciplines (type I) is hard, but can be done.

Teaching critical thinking across disciplines (type II) is really hard, and can sort of be done.

Type I: Critical Thinking Within Disciplines

When we learn a lot about any particular subject, our increased knowledge of that subject allows us to think critically about it. Especially if we practice thinking critically.

So, for example, I’ve spent most of my life acting in, directing, and studying plays. I can (and do) think critically about the theater quite often.

I can tell you why the set worked, but the costumes didn’t. I can explain why this actor’s performance suited the first act of the play but not the second. I can opine that the director’s background (she does musicals more often than plays) has shaped her interpretation of this distinctly un-musical script.

Important warning:

This expertise takes quite a long time and explicit practice to develop. In a famous foundational study from 1981, Chi et al. found that graduate students (!) in physics thought more like undergrads than like professors.

That is: after years of high-level physics study, they still weren’t proficient at seeing below the surface features of a problem to its deep structures. They hadn’t yet mastered critical thinking in their discipline.

They still needed more practice.

Type II: Critical Thinking Across Disciplines

Important warning #2: the critical thinking skills I developed in the theater almost certainly don’t apply in other disciplines.

My theater skill/knowledge certainly won’t help me categorize physics problems.

They won’t help me — in Kaminske’s example — draw expert judgments about different types and qualities of beer. (I’d need LOTS MORE beer expertise to do so. Care to join me?)

Here’s a test you might try: watch 10 minutes of a rugby match. If you — like me — don’t know nothin’ about rugby, you’re unlikely to have much insight into the game you saw.

Why? Because we need LOTS of specific knowledge about and experience in rugby to have critical rugby insights. Our ability to think critically about lesson plans doesn’t help here.

For instance, Kaminske teaches a course on Statistics and Research Methods. For the course, her students have to do a literature review, and write it up as a persuasive essay. All of her students have taken a college course on persuasive writing:

This writing course focuses on writing essays and constructing persuasive arguments. I know that my students know how to do this. I also know that they have no idea how to transfer those skills to my class.

That is: demonstrated critical thinking in one kind of analytical college writing doesn’t transfer to another discipline. She has to teach them explicitly how to do so.

To be clear: Kaminske holds out some hope about about cross-disciplinary critical thinking. Quoting research by van Gelder, she argues that some strategies — such as visualization — promote critical thinking skills in many disciplines.

And yet, that hope is tempered with caution. As a cognitive psychologist with an interest in science fiction movies, she has critical insights into the Matrix, and similar shows.

However, my ability to think critically about cognitive psychology in these movies/shows does not necessarily mean I can think critically about the cinematography or directing. …

Or that I can think critically about any number of things outside of my very specific areas of training and experiences. My critical thinking is very good in a specific domains and less good outside of that domain.

Classroom Implications

Teachers have a finite number of hours that we can spend helping our students think. We should choose the most effective strategies to get that job done.

When we want students to think critically, we can help them do so in two ways.

First: we can teach them more information and skills within a particular topic.

If I want my students to think critically about poetry, they should read a lot of poems, and learn a lot about authors and genres and analytical strategies.

Second: we can give them many opportunities to engage in critical work.

The more time they spend comparing poems, or figures of speech, or genres of love poetry, the more skilled they will become at the critical thinking necessary to do so.

We might wish that cross-disciplinary critical thinking strategies (our type II) existed. Perhaps some — like visualization — do help.

Given what we know about type II critical thinking, however, our most effective strategy will be to focus on type I.

A Final, Sheepish Confession

Honestly, I wish this conclusion weren’t true. I wish we could teach a general critical thinking skill that would apply to all realms of cognitive activity.

I really like how that sounds.

But, scholars starting with Daniel Willingham (back in Why Don’t Students Like School?) have shown that we need lots o’ disciplinary knowledge, and lots o’ specific practice.

I think I serve my students — and my readers — best by acknowledging that frank truth.

Obsessed with Working Memory: Anticipating Overload
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
July-13-2019

Obsessed with Working Memory: Anticipating Overload

Read More

We know what working memory is.

We know that we absolutely must work within the working memory capacity that our students have.

How, exactly, do we do that?

To develop our expertise, we must constantly ask these three questions:

First: As I look at my lesson plan, my syllabus, my test, my classroom, can I ANTICIPATE working memory overload?

Second: As I teach my class, can I IDENTIFY WM overload when it happens?

Third: How do I best MITIGATE or SOLVE those WM problems?

Today, let’s focus on ANTICIPATE.

#1: Information Processing

To anticipate WM overload, we should first look for places that require unusually high amounts of information processing.

Does this lesson include LOTS of new information? (Lots = “more than I usually do with this age group.”)

Does the lesson require students to put information together in new ways?

For instance: I’m working at a summer camp right now, and the assistant director told me about a lesson he had observed. A counselor was showing campers how to use a cook stove. To do so, he took about 20 minutes to show them all the steps involved.

GOOD NEWS: He showed the campers the steps correctly.

BAD NEWS: To use a cook stove, campers needed to learn lots of new information (what is a “valve regulator”?).

And, they needed to put all that information together into a new mental system.

12-year-olds simply can’t take in — and combine — that much new information. And: it’s easy to anticipate that problem.

#2: Dark Sides of the Force

As any Jedi Knight will tell you, the Force isn’t a problem. MISUSE of the Force is a problem.

So too, these two things I’m about to list aren’t bad. But, if we’re not careful about their use, we might overwhelm working memory.

Instructions: Of course, instructions help students do necessary steps, and can help them learn.

But, to follow instructions, students must remember them (that’s “holding”), and the follow them (that’s “reorganizing” and “combining”).  So, following instructions take lots of WM.

If your students seem to get lost while following even simple steps, try giving just one instruction, and letting them finish that before they get the next. (More solutions in a later post.)

Choices: Choices can motivate students, and so facilitate learning.

But, when a student faces cognitive struggles, choices ADD TO WM burdens.

For example:

A student might come to me and say: “I hate this sentence — it sounds so awkward. How do I make it better?”

I could say: “Well, try using an active verb. Or, reduce the number of prepositional phrases. Or, use parallelism to organize the logic. Or, use subordination to vary the rhythm.”

Now, each one of those suggestions has merit. But, too many choices just might make the thinking harder, not easier.

#3 Don’t Miss the Obvious

Tired students have lower WM capacity. So: teenagers can do better work at 10 am than at 8 am.

Over-Stressed students have lower WM capacity. We do want students to face challenges, but not challenges they don’t think they can overcome.

Grand Recap

To ANTICIPATE WM overload:

Review your lesson plans and assessments to be sure they don’t include too much new information, or too many new combinations of information.

Look out for too many instructions and too many choices.

Pay attention to students’ energy level and stress level.

Notice, by the way, that these guidelines necessarily call on your teacherly instincts and experience.

I can say: “don’t give too many instructions,” but how many is too many? As a 5th grade math teacher, you’ll know that … well … that lesson plan had too many.

But, tomorrow’s LP has fewer instructions. Or, perhaps it has simpler instructions. The same number of instructions, if they’re simpler, might just solve the problem.

Research can’t answer that question. Research CAN tell us what to look out for in our classrooms. We have to use our experience to translate that guidance for our day-to-day work.

In the next post: INDENTIFYING WM overload.

Older posts
Newer posts