L&B Blog – Page 48 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content
Life Without Memory: Your Hippocampus and You
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Who are you without your memory?

In neurobiological lingo: who are you without your hippocampus?

The Best-Known Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s News: A New Henry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life Without Memory: Research Findings

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

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

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

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

For teachers, this finding just makes sense.

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

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

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

I recommend the book enthusiastically.

Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

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

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

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

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

cognitive breaks

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

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

How about: doing nothing at all?

Cognitive Breaks: The Theory

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

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

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

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

Cognitive Breaks: The Research

Michaela Dewar and colleagues have been looking into this question.

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

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

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

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

Classroom Questions

A finding like this raises LOTS of practical questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cognitive Breaks: The Neuroscience

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

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

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

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

hat tip: Michael Wirtz

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would, of course, LOVE to prevent cheating.

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

So: what techniques might help us do so?

How To Prevent Cheating: “Moral Reminders”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Again, Maybe Not

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

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

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

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

What’s a Teacher to Do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s Example

Should students listen to music when they study or read?

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

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

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

He’s got a specific example in mind:

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

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

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

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

 

Live Theater Boosts Student Knowledge and Tolerance
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

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

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

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

live theater

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

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

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

Here’s what I found…

Live Theater: Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live Theater: the Results

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

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

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

To put that in other words:

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

 

Teenagers, Hormones, and Other Stubborn Myths
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

teenage hormones

There’s a short video about adolescence making the rounds on social media.

The video offers a quick explanation for highly-emotional teenage behavior. And it has a suggestion or two for parents.

The suggestions themselves make good sense:

Reassure your child that s/he’s normal.

Listen. (Ahem: turn off your cellphone first.)

Take courage: adolescence is a phase, and doesn’t last forever. (And, keep in mind: good things are happening in the brain as it matures.)

However, its “quick explanation for highly-emotional behavior” misses the mark.

This video returns to that old nemesis: teenage hormones.

The Fact and Fiction of Teenage Hormones

True enough, physical maturation does trigger a new hormone profile at puberty. And, those hormones do affect bodies and behaviors. So, this explanation isn’t entirely incorrect.

However, it’s substantially misleading.

In her book The Teenage Brain, Frances Jensen summarizes the “misconceptions and myths about the teenage brain and teenage behavior than are now so ingrained they are accepted as societal beliefs.”

The first misconception/myth on her list? “Teens are impulsive and emotional because of surging hormones” (p. 4).

Instead, we should focus on changes in neural development, especially myelination.

Here’s the short version: brains communicate (in part) with electrical signals. Many of those signals are carried by “uninsulated” wires.

As we age, the brain takes care to insulate more wires. That is: it covers them with myelin.

That process results in lots of good stuff. But, it takes time, and produces some real bumps along the way.

For instance: when the parts of the brain that generate emotional behavior (say, the amygdala and the nucleus accumbens) are more myelinated than the parts that control it (say, the prefrontal cortex), that imbalance allows for bad decisions and emotional over-reactions.

When trying to understand adolescent behavior, we should focus less on teenage hormones and more on the normal process of neuro-biological development.

Some Handy Sources

If you’re really interested in this topic, you should look at Jensen’s book. Also:

The Behavioral Neuroscience of Adolescence by Linda Spear

Age of Opportunity by Laurence Steinberg

Untangled by Lisa Damour

One more book I’d like to recommend: Inventing Ourselves: The Secret Life of the Teenage Brain.

Its author, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, has done lots of the research behind the “imbalance hypothesis.” And, the book just won the Royal Society Book Prize.

For all these reasons, I assume it’s great. However, I haven’t read it yet, so I can’t be certain. I’ll update this post once I’ve got a confident view, one way or the other.

 

Default Image
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

I met yesterday with several thoughtful teachers who had resonant questions about education research.

class length

How do we balance factual learning and deep thinking?

What’s “the right amount of stress” during a test?

How can we promote collaboration while honoring individual differences?

And:

What’s the optimal class length?

This question comes up often. Should we have lots of short classes, so every subject meets every day? Should we have a few longer classes, so that we can dig deeply into a particular topic without interruption?

Debates sometimes fall along disciplinary lines. Foreign language and math teachers often want frequent class meetings; English and History teachers typically like bigger chunks of time for discussions.

Science teachers just gotta have 80 minutes to run a lab well.

But: what does research show?

Class Length: What Research Tells Us

As far as I know, we just don’t have a clear answer to that question.

Over at the Education Endowment Fund, for example, they’ve investigated the benefits of block scheduling: that is, a few long periods rather than several short ones.

The finding: we can’t really say. Or, to quote EEF: “There is no consistent pattern in the evidence.”

More precisely:

The evidence suggests that how teachers use the time they are allocated is more important than the length of lesson or the schedule of lessons, and hence that the introduction of block scheduling is unlikely to raise attainment by itself.

By implication, a change away from block scheduling shouldn’t raise attainment either.

The point is not how long we teach but how well we teach with the time we’ve got.

For this reason, I often counsel schools and teachers: before you change your schedule, study human attention systems.

Once teachers know how attention works — and, it’s A LOT more complicated that we might have thought — we’ll be much better at helping students learn. (If you have the chance to attend a Learning and the Brain session about attention: RUN, don’t walk.)

Class Length: What Research Can’t Tell Us

Research doesn’t answer this question, I think, because it can’t. There’s no one correct answer.

If you teach 2nd graders or 7th graders or 11th graders, you’ll probably find that different lengths of time work better.

If you teach in cultures that inculcate patience and concentration, longer classes will work better than in cultures with a more get-up-and-go kind of pace.

The number of students in the class might matter.

The experience of the teacher almost certainly matters.

When your school starts investigating schedules, therefore, I suggest you start with these essentials:

First: study human attention.

Second: don’t design “the optimal schedule.” Design the optimal schedule for your school and your students. It might not work at anyone else’s school, but it doesn’t need to.

A schedule that works for you and your students is the closest to optimal that you can get.

Is It Time to Re-Re-Think Mindset Research?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Mindset doubts have been haunting education for a while now.

mindset doubts

Most dramatically, a recent meta-analysis including more than 300 studies makes it clear that colorful growth-mindset posters won’t cure all our problems. (BTW: this meta-analysis included data from almost 370,000 participants. Wow.)

Combined with general concerns about the replication crisis in psychology, and some actual non-replications, this analysis has put Mindset Theory under a cloud.

Mindset Doubts in Context

Of course, we should always doubt research findings. Science, after all, is a way of practicing effective skepticism.

At the same time, doubts don’t require wholesale rejection.

While it’s certainly true that “colorful growth-mindset posters won’t cure all our problems,” I don’t think anyone has seriously claimed that they would. (Well: maybe people who sell colorful growth-mindset posters.)

Instead, the theory makes this claim: we can help students think one way (growth mindset) more often than another way (fixed mindset). When they do…

…they have more helpful goals in school.

…they have a healthier perspective on the difficulties that regularly accompany learning.

…and, they respond more effectively to academic struggle.

This process doesn’t require a revolution. It asks for a general change in emphasis. For some students, this new emphasis increases motivation and learning.

Research Continues

While that big meta-analysis got lots of headlines, other useful studies have recently come out. For example:

This meta-analysis found that a well-known mindset technique largely works. When students study how brains change as they learn (“neuroplasticity”), they develop growth mindsets. And, they learn more stuff.

This recent study shows that even a “one-shot” mindset intervention has lasting effects. The researchers tested this idea over two years with four different high-school cohorts. They’ve got lots of data.

This study suggests that encouraging people to adopt a growth mindset likewise encourages them to become more “intellectually humble.” Lord knows we can all use some more intellectual humility these days.

The point is not that we should reject all mindset doubts.

The point is that one meta-analysis should not end all discussion of a theory that’s been researched for 40+ years.

We should not, of course, ask mindset to solve all our problems. Nor should we ask retrieval practice to solve all problems. Or short bursts of in-class exercise.

No one change fixes everything.

Instead, we should see Mindset Theory as one useful tool that can help many of our students.