Skip to main content
There’s No Polite Way to Say “I Told You So”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Back in 2014, Pam Mueller and Dan Oppenheimer made headlines with their wittily titled study “The Pen Is Mightier Than The Keyboard.”

In that study, they found that students learn more from taking handwritten notes during a lecture than from laptop notes. Their conclusions spawned a thousand gloating posts. And (I don’t doubt) a multitude of well-intentioned anti-laptop policies.

Since I first read the study, I’ve been shouting that its conclusions simply don’t hold up.

Why?

Because M&O’s conclusions hold water only if you believe students can’t learn new things.

(That’s a very strange belief for teachers to have.)

If you believe that students can learn new things, then you believe that they can learn to take laptop notes correctly.

(“Correctly” = “rewriting the lecture’s main points in your own words; don’t just transcribe verbatim”)

If they do that, then this famous study actually suggests laptop notes will enhance learning, not detract from it.

You can find a summary of my argument — and its limitations — here.

Today’s News

Scholars have recently published an attempt at replication of Mueller & Oppenheimer’s study.

The results? Not much.

In the quiet language of research, they conclude:

“Based on the present outcomes and other available evidence, concluding which method [handwriting or laptops] is superior for improving the functions of note-taking seems premature.”

Not so much with the mighty pen.

By the way: a study from 2018 also concluded that — except in special circumstances — it just didn’t make much difference which method students use.

Why I Care

Perhaps surprisingly, I’m not an ardent advocate of laptop notes. Or, for that matter, of handwritten notes.

I advocate for teachers making classroom decisions informed by good research.

In this case, the Mueller and Oppenheimer study contains a perfectly obvious flaw. I have yet to meet anyone who doesn’t think a) that students can learn good note-taking skills, and b) that if they do, the study’s conclusions make no sense.

And yet, very few people have time to dig into research methodology. As a result, this one study had confirmed many teachers in their beliefs that technology harms learning during note-taking.

That statement might be true. It might be false. But this one study doesn’t give us good data to answer the question.

As a result, teachers might be taking laptops away from students who would learn more if they got to use them.

In brief: bad research harms learning.

I hope that this most recent study encourages teachers to rethink our classroom practices.

Can Creativity Be Taught? What’s the Formula?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

My edutwitter feed has a lively debate about this question: can we teach people to be creative?

This round started with a post by David Didau, summarizing a debate between himself and Paul Carney.

Didau believes (oversimplifying here) that creativity is an emergent phenomenon, resulting from a knowledge-rich curriculum.

When people know lots o’ stuff, they are increasingly able to come up with new and useful combinations of that stuff. And, that’s how we typically define “creativity”: new & useful.

On the contrary, Carney believes that creativity can — in fact, must — be taught directly. For instance, he believes that helping students visualize complex patterns can help them see information in new ways.

That is, one teachable skill leads to greater creativity in general.

What’s the Secret Formula?

Tom Sherrington weighs in on this debate, and (creatively) adds his own twist.

Although he doesn’t think creativity can be taught, he does think it can be fostered. In fact, he’s got a formula for fostering it. Here goes:

c = f (K, P, D)

Unsurprisingly, the K in Sherrington’s formula is “knowledge.” I’ll let you read his article to explore the other two key variables.

As an added bonus, you’ll get to see a Francis-Bacon-inspired portrait of Sherrington’s son, painted by Sherrington’s daughter. I don’t doubt you’ll be impressed by the creativity on display…

 

Why Do Teachers Resist Research? And, Why Should We?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Let’s imagine that you show me research suggesting that students remember the words they draw better than the words they write down.

After some thought…perhaps some experimentation on my own…I decide not to follow this research advice.

Why did I “resist” these research findings? What prompted me to do so?

Education researcher Tim Cain divides possible answers into four categories. The verbs he uses to describe each one are all synonyms. But, he gives each one distinct meaning to distinguish among the possibilities.

And, as you’ll see, three of the four choices sound really bad.

3 Bad Choices

Denial: denialists basically pretend that there is reasonable disagreement on a topic where none really exits. Example: companies that say smoking isn’t bad for your lungs, or historians who pretend the Holocaust didn’t happen.

For the most part, in Cain’s analysis, deniers strive to “protect self-esteem and status.”

Opposition: whereas denialists typically have power and want to protect it, oppositionists don’t have much power, and reject scientific findings that might continue their subjugation.

For instance, I might have rejected the drawing strategy because I didn’t think it worked (see below). But, I might reject it because – as a teacher with relatively little cultural power – I don’t want to be bossed around by scientific researchers – who have more cultural standing than I do.

Rejection: Rejections gets a little complicated. In this model, I accept research findings only if they BOTH help students learn AND make me look good. But, if they don’t hit both targets, I’m not interested.

So, for example, if drawing does help students remember, but doesn’t win me esteem in the faculty room, then I’m just not interested.

As you can see, these first three choices don’t seem very appealing. I’m oversimplifying a bit – but not a lot – to say that teachers who resist research for these reasons are being jerks.

Frankly, I’m feeling a bit stressed right now. Does Cain acknowledge that teachers have any good reasons to resist research findings?

One More?

Indeed, Cain does give us one more choice.

Dissent: if teachers think critically about research, we might see gaps, flaws, or logical leaps. Rather than being driven by the sinister motives outlined above, we might honestly – even insightfully – disagree with the arguments put before us.

Being a researcher, Cain wanted to know: which is it? Why do teachers ultimately decide not to follow researchers’ advice?

Are we protecting the power we have (“denial”)? Fighting to prevent others from getting even more power over us (“opposition”)? Focusing on prestige more than usefulness (“rejection”)?

Or, are we enhancing educational debate by thinking critically (“dissent”)?

The Big Reveal

I’ll cut to the chase: for the most part, Cain finds that we’re in the critical thinking business.

To arrive at this conclusion, Cain worked with several teachers at two schools in northern England. He gave them some research articles, and asked them to try out the researchers’ findings. He then met with them to talk over their work, and interviewed them about their conclusions.

Here’s what he found:

First: teachers ultimately agreed with and accepted significant chunks of the researchers’ conclusions and advice. There didn’t simply reject everything they read and undertook.

Second: at the same time, teachers didn’t see researchers’ conclusions as more important than their own. As Cain puts it:

Essentially, almost all the teachers saw the authority of the published research reports as provisional. They did not see the research as having greater authority than their own experience or other forms of information.

Third: when teachers did resist researchers’ conclusions, they did so for entirely plausibly reasons.

They (plausibly) thought some of the studies contained contradictions. They (plausibly) saw some findings as out of date. And, they (plausibly) raised objections to research methodology.

They also – and I think this is very good news – emphasized the narrow particularity of research findings. As one teacher said:

If you researched in different schools, it would be different. If you had an inner-city school, a wealthy middle-class school, a private school, every one would be totally, totally different.

And another:

Does anything work for every single person? No, I don’t think there’s anything that will work exactly the same. It’s finding what’s right for your group: the age, the personalities.

(Regular readers of the blog know that I bang on about this point all the time, so I’m DELIGHTED to see it articulated so clearly here.)

Closing Thoughts

Cain (rightly) emphasizes that his study is early and exploratory. He worked with volunteers: that is, people who are likely to be interested in research in the first place. (If they weren’t interested, they wouldn’t have volunteered.)

And, like any study, this one has lots of limitations. For instance: these teachers worked in “Gifted and Talented” programs. Findings in other settings might be different.

But, at least initially, Cain’s finding shows that teachers can be great partners for researchers. We’re not resisting for the sake of resisting.

Instead, we’re thinking critically about the limits of research, and the goodness of fit for our particular classrooms.

Which is exactly what we should do.

 

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

We often post about the unreliability of “brain training.”

Heck, even though I live in Boston and am a Patriots fan, I made fun of Tom Brady’s website claiming to “increase brain speed” and other such nonsense. (I don’t even know what “increase brain speed” might mean.)

So, you think I’d be especially wary of these claims. But, even I can fall into such traps — at least temporarily. Last week, it happened TWICE.

Fool Me Once

Many researchers have claimed to be able to increase working memory capacity.

(It would be great if we could do so, because working memory is so important for all classroom learning.)

Alas, very consistently, we find that such programs don’t really work. (For instance, here and here.)

And so, I was very excited to see a new approach to the problem.

We have long known that the cerebellum helps control motor function. More recently, scientists have discovered that it also supports working memory performance.

Perhaps, we could strengthen cerebellar function, and that way enhance WM. Worth a try, no?

Although this explanation makes good sense, and the accompanying graphs looked impressive, I was drawn up short by a serious problem: the researchers didn’t measure working memory.

You read that right. Instead of a WM test, they gave participants a short-term memory test.

So, this research shows that cerebellar training might increase STM. But, it shows nothing about WM.

Brain training hopes dashed…

Fool Me Twice

Unlike WM training, we have had some luck with attention training.

For instance, Green and Bavalier have shown that playing certain computer games can increase various kinds of visual attention.

A recent study claimed that a specially designed iPad game could enhance sustained visual attention. I was gearing up to review the research so I could write about it here, when…

I learned that the test to measure students’ attention was very similar to the game itself. (H/t: Michael Kane)

In other words: participants might have gotten better because they (basically) practiced the test, not because their sustained attention improved.

To measure such progress, researchers would need a test that wasn’t similar to the game participants played.

Brain training hopes re-dashed…

The Big Take Away for Teachers

I’m basically an optimistic person, and I really don’t like being a grinch.

But, sometimes my job requires me to be grinchy.

At this point, I’ve been inspired by “brain training” claims so many times, only to be disappointed by an analysis of the research underlying those claims.

So, from now on, I’m just going to assume that new claims are highly likely to be false.

If brain training claims are subsequently replicated by many research teams; if the methodologies are scrutinized and approved by several scholars in the field; well, if that happens, I’ll relent.

For now, I don’t want to be fooled again.

The Joys (and Stresses) of Teacher/Neuroscientist Collaboration
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

In an ideal world, teachers and researchers collaborate to bring out the best in each other.

So, I might invite Pooja Agarwal to study retrieval practice in my 10th grade English classroom.

My students and I benefit because we learn more about this great study technique.

Dr. Agarwal’s research benefits because she sees how the theory of the technique functions in the real messy world of schools.

What’s not to like?

Theory, Meet Reality

Of course, our world rarely lives up to that ideal. Teacher/researcher collaboration creates all sorts of challenges.

We speak very different languages.

We operate within very different time frames.

At times, we highlight very different values.

All these differences can make communication, progress, and success difficult to achieve.

Today’s Example

Over at the Blog on Learning Development, Meeri Kim has recently written about a collaboration between neuroscientists and Head Start teachers. More precisely, she interviewed two of the scientists in the program.

The result: a refreshingly frank description of the benefits and stresses of this collaboration.

For instance: the curriculum that the scientists created improved social skills and selective attention, while reducing problem behaviors. What teacher wouldn’t like those results?

As researcher Lauren Vega O’Neil noted:

A lot of the activities were packaged as fun games. The teachers loved having these ready-made activities that would help them long-term in the classroom.

And yet, this collaboration included confusions and stresses as well.

I worked mostly with teachers in classrooms during the study, and many of them jumped on board right away. But there was some pushback, particularly since some teachers saw this as yet another curriculum that they were being asked to implement. […] So they just saw our training program as something else that was being asked of them.

Suggestions?

Researcher Eric Pakulak has some surprisingly direct advice for colleagues who want to do classroom research:

Unfortunately, it seems to be all too common that researchers come in and don’t listen as much as they should to educators, thinking that it should be all about neuroscience, and only using education to implement what they know, as opposed to something more bi-directional.

Instead, we need to work together and really understand the ways that the experience of teachers and administrators can inform our work.

I agree with this advice wholeheartedly.

And, I likewise think that teachers can do more to understand the pressures on researchers.

For instance: research works by isolating variables.

Classroom researchers might have very particular scheduling needs. They can be certain that retrieval practice produces a benefit only if nothing else in the class was different. So, they might have to insist we schedule quizzes at a very specific point in the class — even if that schedule is highly inconvenient for us.

The more that teachers understand these research requirements, the more effectively we can create classroom research paradigms that both help our individual students learn and help researchers discover enduring truths about learning.

Two Swings, Two Misses: The New York Times on Education
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Two recent articles in the New York Times have gotten lots of teacherly attention.

What’s Love Got to Do With It?

The first, an op-ed by David Brooks, announces that “students learn from people they love.”

Brooks’s piece includes some heart-warming anecdotes, and name checks some important researchers: Antonio Damasio, for instance, and Mary Helen Immordino-Yang.

(Everyone admires Immordino-Yang’s work. An interview with her appeared on the blog just six weeks ago.)

The hyperbole of the headline, however, strikes me as profoundly unhelpful. “Love” just isn’t a useful word for considering the research that Brooks cites.

Said differently: lots of people learn all sorts of things from people they don’t love.

Students learn better when they have strong positive relationships with their teachers.

They learn better when they feel safe and taken care of.

They learn better with appropriate levels of stress. (Not “lots and lots,” but not “none” either.)

By all means, teachers should keep emotions in mind when we teach. But if “love” isn’t central to your teaching, don’t let Brooks worry you.

(Honestly: too much talk about “love” makes me worry about professional boundaries. We should respect and care about our students. Let’s keep it at that.)

Strike Two

The Times also offers an article about memory training techniques.

I often hear from teachers about Moonwalking with Einstein-like strategies for learning list of words and numbers.

(Another favorite: the method of loci — associating words with a string of familiar places.)

While I don’t doubt these strategies help people memorize random collections of names or digits, I have to ask: how often do teachers want our students to do that?

Most teachers answer that question: “almost never.”

As an English teacher, I want my students to understand the meanings of words, or to know how to subordinate a quotation in a participial phrase, or to explain the concept of “group protagonist” in Grapes of Wrath.

I simply can’t think of a long list of random stuff I want them to memorize.

(A student recently told me she’d been required to memorize information about 60 chemical elements. The method of loci might have helped her.

However: a) I’ve yet to find a chemistry teacher who thinks that this homework assignment was a good idea, and b) how much time would it take to learn those memory techniques in the first place?

Oh, and, c) I’m not sure that assignment really happened in the first place. It’s just possible that student exaggerated a smidge.)

In Sum…

Read the Times (or don’t) for its political coverage. Subscribe (or not) for the crosswords.

But: if you see education advice, check with a friendly MBE professional before you make changes in your classroom.

 

Big Hairy Audacious Education Proposal of the Month
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

John Medina’s books have been a gateway drug for many a brain-focused teacher.

parenting teens

(Like so many others, I myself was introduced to the field by his book Brain Rules.)

His most recent book, Attack of the Teenage Brain!, joins a growing list of very helpful authors focused on adolescence and adolescents. (For instance: Sarah-Jayne Blakemore and Lisa Damour.)

Medina offers many suggestions: you can read about them here.

One in particular stands out for its combined wisdom and audacity: educating parents.

Follow the Logic

Medina follows a straightforward logical chain to his audacious proposal. It goes like this:

To succeed academically, high school students need extra high doses of executive function (EF).  Sadly, because of the neurobiological tumult of adolescence, the various neural networks that allow for EF struggle to get the job done.

All that myelination, all that blooming and pruning: it can add up to a cognitive muddle that we call “teenage behavior.”

Given a) the importance of executive function, and b) the difficulty of EF during adolescence, what can we do to give our teens a boost?

Sidebar: Defining Executive Function

Because we hear so much about EF, you might think that everyone knows what it is.

In fact, you might have noticed that everyone’s list of executive functions is different — and worry that you’re the only one who doesn’t understand why.

Don’t fear; it’s not you. Definitions of EF vary widely.

Medina boils executive function down to three key features: working memory, self-control/inhibition, and mental flexibility. (That last one creates all sorts of room for definitional variety. So: planning, organizing, task-switching, prioritizing, strategically postponing…you get the idea.)

To strengthen executive function, we can’t really improve working memory. But, we might be able to help with self-control and mental flexibility. How might we do so?

Parenting Matters: So, Try Educating Parents

Medina devotes chapter 4 of Attack to research on parenting and EF.  We have all sorts of research to show that the right kind of parenting boosts executive function, and the wrong kind undermines it.

If good parenting enhances EF, we might improve high school learning by promoting the right kind of parenting. His big hairy audacious suggestion: “a night school annex for parents.”

As Medina writes:

“The argument for creating such a program is rooted in a blunt observation: most adults are woefully unprepared to rear children.” (p. 105)

Simply put, the “right kind of parenting” can indeed be taught. It’s called “authoritative” parenting — contrasted with “indulgent,” “indifferent,” and (unhelpfully) “authoritarian” parenting.

Medina’s parenting annex would teach authoritative parenting, thereby improve teens’ EF, and thereby enhance their learning.

Objections, and Answers

Objection #1: who are you to define “the right kind of parenting”? Is my parenting wrong just because you say so?

Answer: Medina walks his readers through lots of research on this question. The short answer: “the right kind of parenting” results in healthy and effective adults.

“Permissive” or “authoritarian” parenting isn’t bad because Medina (and Laurence Steinberg) say so. It’s bad because children parented that way struggle as adults.

You might not agree with their answer, but that’s what they say.

Objection #2: A night school annex for parents? Let’s be practical: how on earth would that work? The money. The time. The curriculum. The headaches.

I mean, really?

Answer: Medina has a curriculum answer, but leaves the other questions for another day. If we as a society ever agree to tackle this problem, we’ll find the money. We’ll fix the headaches.

In brief: when we decide that educating teens calls for educating parents, we will get the job done.

 

Two Helpful Strategies to Lessen Exam Stresses
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Exam stress bothers many of our students. Sadly, it hinders students from lower socio-economic status (SES) families even more.

As a result, these students struggle — especially in STEM classes. And, exam stressthis struggle makes it harder for them to enter these important (and lucrative!) fields.

Can we break this cycle somehow?

Reducing Exam Stress: Two Approaches

Christopher Rozek tried a combination of strategies to help lower-SES science students manage exam stress.

This research stands out for a number of reasons: in particular, it included a large sample (almost 1200 students). And, it took place in a school, not a psychology lab. That is, his results apply to the “real world,” not just a hermetically sealed research space.

Rozek worked with students taking a 9th grade biology class. Before they took the two exams in the course, Rozek had students write for ten minutes.

One group spent their ten minutes writing about their current thoughts and feelings. This approach lets students “dump” their anxiety, and has been effective in earlier studies. (By the way: this earlier research is controversial. I’ve written about that controversy here.)

Another group read a brief article showing that the right amount of stress can enhance performance. This reading, and the writing they did about it, helps students “reappraise” the stress they feel.

A third group did shortened versions of both “dumping” and “reappraising” exercises.

And the control group read and wrote about the importance of ignoring and suppressing negative/stressful emotions.

So, did the “dump” strategy or the “reappraise” strategy help?

Dramatic Results

Indeed, they both did.

For example, Rozek and Co. measured the effect these strategies (alone or together) had on the exam-score gap between high- and low-SES students.

The result? They cut the gap by 29%.

Rozek also tracked course failure. Among low-SES students, these strategies cut the failure rate by 50%.

(In the control group, 36% of the low SES students failed the class; in the other three groups, that rate fell to 18%. Of course, 18% is high — but it’s dramatically lower than 36%.)

In his final measure, Rozek found that — after these interventions — low SES-students evaluated their stress much more like the high SES-students. The gap between these ratings fell…by 81%.

All this progress from a 10 minute writing exercise.

Classroom Guidance to Reduce Exam Stress

If you’ve got students who are likely to feel higher levels of anxiety before a test, you might adapt either (or both) of these strategies for your students.

The best way to make these strategies work will vary depending on your students’ age and academic experience.

You might start by reviewing Rozek’s research — click the link above, and look for the “Procedure” section on page 5. From there, use your teacherly wisdom to make those procedures fit your students, your classroom, and you.

Strategies that Backfire: Monitoring Screen Time
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Teachers and parents, reasonably enough, worry about the time that children spend looking at screens. Given the phones, tablets, phablets, laptops, and televisions that surround them, it seems normal to worry about the long-term effects of screens, screens, screens.

monitoring screen time

Monitoring screen time seems the obvious parenting strategy, and obvious teacher recommendation.

Not So Fast…

Recent research out of Canada throws doubt on this seemingly sensible approach.

Researchers surveyed parents of young children (ages 1.5-5), asking about their technology habits and parenting approaches.

Sure enough, they found that monitoring screen time correlates with an increase in the child’s technology use.

That is: when parents reward children with extra screen time, those children use more screens. Ditto parents who punish with reduced screen time. Ditto parents who simply keep track of their child’s screen time.

YIKES.

What’s a Parent to Do?

As is so often true, our behavior points the way. Parents who use screens less often in front of their children model the behavior they want to see. Result: less screen time.

This finding holds true especially for screens at mealtimes.

The best advice we’ve got so far: if you don’t want your children to obsesses over their tables, avoid monitoring screen time.

Several Caveats

First, given the survey methodology, the study can find correlation, but can’t conclude causation.

Second, the nitty-gritty gets complicated. The research team kept track of multiple variables: mothers’ behavior vs. fathers’ behavior; screen time on week days vs. screen time on weekends. To understand the specific connections, click the link above.

Third, this study focused short-term correlations with very young children. We simply don’t know about older children. Who knows: teens forbidden from playing Minecraft more than 3 hours a day might just play less Minecraft.

Finally, I think research about bright screens before sleep is well-established enough to be worth a reminder here. Blue light from computer screens can muddle melatonin onset, and thereby interfere with sleep. In this case in particular, we should model healthy screen behavior.

Does Drawing a Simple Picture Benefit Memory?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

If a picture is worth 1000 words, how many words is drawing a picture worth?

drawing benefits memory

More specifically, Jeffrey Wammes & Co. have been exploring this question: is it true that drawing benefits memory? If I draw a picture of a word, will I remember it better than if I simply wrote that word down several times?

To explore this question, Wammes and his team have run a series of studies over the last several years. Basically, they’re trying to disprove their own hypothesis. If they can’t disprove it…well, it’s increasingly likely to be true.

The basic studies took a fairly simple form. Students saw a word and then spent 40 seconds drawing a picture of it. Or, they saw a word and spent 40 seconds writing it down several times.

Which words did they remember better? Yup: the words that they had drawn.

This effect held up not only in a psychology lab, but also in a college lecture hall.

Drawing Benefits Memory: More Advanced Studies

This hypothesis makes a kind of rough-and ready sense, for a number of reasons.

For instance, it just seems plausible that drawing benefits memory because visuals aide memory. Or, because drawing requires a greater degree of cognitive processing than simply writing.

So: perhaps drawing is but one example of these other effects.

Wammes and Co. wanted to see if that’s true. (Remember: they’re trying to disprove their hypothesis.)

So, they repeated the study several more times. In some cases, students drew pictures for some words and looked at pictures of other words.

Or, in another study, they drew pictures of some words and wrote down key features of other words. (Writing down key features requires higher levels of processing.)

In every case, they found that drawing produces even greater benefits than each sub-strategy. Students remembered more words that they had drawn than words they had processed in all those other ways.

Classroom Implications

What should classroom teachers do with this information?

In the first place, keep in mind that we’re still in early days of testing this technique. Much of this research has focused on nouns that are relatively easy to draw: say, “apple.”

At the same time, Wammes ran one study where students either drew or copied verbatim definitions of words. For instance, “stratoscopes” are “airborne telescopes that are mounted on high altitude balloons.” Once again, drawing led to better memory than simple copying.

Wammes’s team is currently exploring drawings of more abstract words: I hope to see those results published soon.

With these caveats in mind, I think we can plausibly use this approach in our classrooms. If you think a word, definition, concept, or process can plausibly be drawn, give your students a change to “review by drawing.”

Or, if you’ve built in a moment for retrieval practice, encourage students to include a drawing as part of their retrieval.

You might conclude that a particular topic doesn’t lend itself to drawing. An an English teacher, I’m not immediately sure how to draw “ode” or “concatenation” or “litotes.”

But, if a word or concept seems drawable to you, you might give students a chance to try out this mnemonic aide.

A Final Note

I emailed Dr. Wammes with a few questions about his research. In his reply, he included this quite wonderful sentence:

“There certainly will be situations where it [drawing] doesn’t work, I just unfortunately haven’t found them yet.”

Too often, teachers can take research findings as absolute injunctions. When we learn about the 10 minute rule, we think: “okay, I have to change it up every ten minutes!”

But, that’s just not true.

Psychology findings will benefits some of our classroom situations, some of our students, some of our lesson plans, some of our schools.

But, almost no research finding always applies. We have to translate and adapt and tinker.

The field of Mind, Brain, Education is a partnership: teachers learn from researchers, and researchers learn from teachers.

So, when you try this technique in your classroom, keep track of your results. If you pass them on to me, I’ll let the researchers know.