Skip to main content

Category Archives: L&B Blog

Older posts
Newer posts
Can You Reduce Stress by Writing About Failure?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-03-2018

Can You Reduce Stress by Writing About Failure?

Read More

Here’s a counter-intuitive suggestion: perhaps we might reduce stress by writing about failure.

Truthfully, that seems like an odd idea.

reduce stress by writing

After all, it seems logical to think we could reduce stress by writing about puppies, or our favorite grandparent, or a happy holiday memory.

But: writing about failure? Wouldn’t that just add to the stress?

Take 1: Writing Reduces Stress

Earlier research has shown that we can reduce stress by writing.

For example, Ramirez and Beilock placed students in a high pressure academic situation. Each student had to take a difficult math test. Even more stressful, another student’s reward depended on their score.

That is: if I perform badly, I don’t get a reward AND someone else doesn’t get a reward.

(Talk about pressure.)

Half of these students had ten minutes to sit quietly. The other half used their ten minutes “to write as openly as possible about their thoughts and feelings regarding the math problems.”

You might think that this writing exercise would ramp up the students’ anxiety levels. However, it had the opposite effect. Students who had the opportunity to write about their anxiety then felt less anxious.

In fact, when Rabirez and Beilock tested this method with 9th graders taking a biology exam, they found it improved their final scores. (This effect held for the more anxious students, but not the less anxious ones.)

Take 2: Reduce Stress by Writing about Failure

In a just-published study, Brynne DiMenichi and colleagues found that writing about a prior failure reduced stress and improved attention.

DiMenichi’s team asked some students to write for ten minutes about a “difficult time in which they did not succeed.” (Students in the control group spent ten minutes summarizing the plot of a recent movie they had seen.)

They then asked these students to talk extemporaneously in a mock interview for their dream job; they were told they’d be evaluated by a “speech expert” while they spoke. To add to this devilish stress test, they then had to solve math problems in their head. (When they made mistakes, they had to start over at the beginning of the sequence.)

Sure enough, as they predicted, DiMenichi & Co. found that students who wrote about a prior failure were less stressed as a result of this exercise than the students who had summarized a movie.

That’s right: writing about a prior failure reduced stress.

Did that reduced stress benefit these students?

Well, researchers then asked all the students to try an attention test. They saw letters flash on a computer screen, and had to press the space bar when they saw a consonant. However, when they saw a vowel, they did NOT press the space bar.

As you can imagine, this test requires both attention and inhibition. Once I’ve gotten used to pressing that space bar, I’ve got to restrain myself when I see a vowel.

The students’ stress levels made a big difference.

Students who had written about failure–and who therefore felt less stress–averaged roughly 7.75 mistakes on this test.

Students who summarized the movie–and who therefore felt more stress–averaged 13.5 mistakes.

That’s almost twice as many! (For stats lovers, the d value is 1.17.)

Classroom Implications

We all know students who need some stress reduction in their lives. And, we’ve all heard different ways to get that job done.

These studies, and others like them, suggest that this counter-intuitive strategy might well be helpful to the anxious students in our classrooms. If students can off-load their stress onto paper, they’ll feel less anxious, and be more successful in their schoolwork.

The best way to make the strategy work will depend on the specifics of your situation: the age of your students, the school where you teach, the personality you bring to the classroom.

I myself would be sure to explain why I wanted my high-school students to do this assignment before I asked them to give it a try.

If you attempt to use this approach, send me an email and let me know how it goes: [email protected].

(By the way: if you’re interested in the science of good stress, click here.)

“Not Just a Decadent Luxury”: The Power of Naps
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April-01-2018

“Not Just a Decadent Luxury”: The Power of Naps

Read More

We know that sleep is good for learning. But what about NAPS?

Over at BrainBlogger, Viatcheslav Wlassoff summarizes research suggesting that naps yield clear benefits for cognition, attention, and emotion.

power of naps

Although I find research into the power of naps generally persuasive, I do worry about an important gap. Do naps interfere with sound night-time sleep?

That is: Wlassoff summarizes research showing than naps help sleep-deprived people. Do they help non-sleep-deprived people? And, do they make it harder to get a full night’s sleep?

If yes, then the short-term power of naps might create longer-term problems.

If you know of research that answers this question, I hope you’ll let me know.

Homework Improves Conscientiousness: Do You Believe It?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March-29-2018

Homework Improves Conscientiousness: Do You Believe It?

Read More

Teachers have many reasons to assign homework. In particular, we want our students to practice whatever they’re learning, so they can get better at it.

homework improves conscientiousness

We might also plausibly hope that homework benefits students in other ways. Perhaps it helps them get more organized. Perhaps it involves parents in learning. Or, perhaps homework improves conscientiousness.

This last option seems especially intriguing.

Obviously, conscientiousness improves the likelihood that students will do homework. But, does that causal process flow the other way? Do people who do more homework become more conscientious?

Promising Signs

To answer that question, several researchers gathered data from German middle school students, and — crucially — their parents.

Then, they crunched a lot of numbers. I mean, A LOT of numbers.

Early results showed that, for these middle schoolers, homework effort and conscientiousness change in tandem. More specifically, both homework effort and conscientiousness increased from 5th to 7th grades, and then declined quite sharply from 7th to 8th grades.

(My condolences to 8th grade teachers.)

These correlations also appeared when analyzing parents’ points of view. Like their children, they saw that the effort going in to homework correlated with their children’s conscientiousness in other areas of life.

Researchers then ramped up their analytical methodology to explore causal direction. They used a particular statistical method to contrast students whose effort did not go up with those who did, and to compare their conscientiousness levels.

Is it true that doing more homework improves conscientiousness? Here is their summary:

We are willing to tentatively propose that changing one’s homework effort may lead to changes in conscientiousness, but obviously, this inference and our results await more rigorous testing.

In other words: based on the data they have and the methods they can use, it seems so. But, these methods have limits, so we need to explore this question further.

Homework Improves Conscientiousness: Not So Fast…

This study appeals to me because its authors recognize not only the limits of their methods, but also the limitations of its implications.

For instance, teachers might conclude “if homework improves conscientiousness, then we should all assign more homework. It will be good for them, and not just their learning.”

NOT SO FAST, the authors respond.

First, not all students do the homework we assign. After all, in the dry language of research, they note that “students differ in the extent to which they ascribe value to the activity of doing homework.” (Ain’t that the truth…)

Second, an increase in homework might (might!) increase conscientiousness, but it might harm other important things: like, say, happiness, or relationships with peers.  Conscientiousness is an important part of life, but it’s not the only important part of life.

What’s Next

Reasonably enough, these researchers call for more investigation of this question. In particular, they hope for a study that controls the amount of homework that students do, and learns from what happens next.

(The current study, remember, simply looks at what students did.)

But what should we teachers do because of this research?

Schools are having a healthy and important debate right now about the benefits of homework. (For earlier posts on this topic, click here and here.) Reasonably enough, we want to ensure that its benefits outweigh its potential harms: lost time, increased stress.

This research encourages us to remember the non-academic benefits of homework. If we cut back on practice problems, what can teachers and parents do in their stead to help young children develop the healthy characteristics essential for a productive adult life?

I don’t know the answer, but I do know that’s an important question.

Adolescents and Self-Control: Do Teens Recognize High Stakes?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March-26-2018

Adolescents and Self-Control: Do Teens Recognize High Stakes?

Read More

Anyone who works with teenagers — teachers and parents — wonders about the mystery of adolescent self-control.

At times, they prove capable of magnificent cognitive accomplishment.Adolescent self-control

(A high-school junior I taught once composed a new soliloquy for Hamlet. Speaking of Claudius — the uncle who murdered Hamlet’s own father — Hamlet says: “My unfather unfathered me.” I think the Bard himself envies that line.)

And, at other times, they baffle us with their extraordinary foolishness.

(At the next Learning and the Brain conference, ask me about the teens who kidnapped a teacher’s dog as a gesture of respect and affection.)

How do we make sense of this puzzle?

Adolescent Self-Control: High Stakes and Mistakes

Recent research offers one intriguing answer.

Catherine Insel, working as part of Leah Somerville’s lab, wondered if teens recognize the difference between high stakes and low stakes. Better said: she wanted to know if they behaved differently in those distinct settings.

She had students aged 13-20 perform a “go/no-go task.” When they saw a blue circle or a yellow circle or a purpley circle, they pressed a button. When they saw a stripey circle, they did NOT press the button. That is, they had to inhibit the instinct to press the button.

That’s a kind of self-control.

Some of the time, they faced small rewards and penalties: plus twenty cents for getting it right, minus ten cents for getting it wrong.

Some of the time, they faced larger rewards and penalties: plus one dollar for getting it right, minutes fifty cents for getting it wrong.

You might predict that adolescents would be more careful when the stakes were higher. That is, their score would be better when a WHOLE DOLLAR was on the line.

But: nope. That’s not what happened.

In the age groups from 13-18, they did equally well on low- and high-stakes tasks. Only the 19- and 20-year-olds were measurably better at high-stakes than low-stakes.

Put simply: adolescents simply didn’t respond to the difference between high-stakes and low-stakes tests.

Adolescent Self-control: The Brain Part

So far, Insel and colleagues were looking at behavior; that’s the study of psychology. They also looked at brain differences; that’s the study of neuroscience.

In particular, they focused on two brain areas.

The pre-frontal cortex — the part of the brain just behind the forehead — helps manage “higher” brain processes, such as inhibition.

The striatum — deep in the center of the brain — is a key part of the “reward network,” and influences motivation and decision-making.

(By the way, almost ALL brain regions — including the pre-frontal cortex and the striatum — participate in MANY different brain functions.)

They found that the connection between these regions matures over time.

That is, the self-control functions of the pre-frontal cortex are increasingly able to manage the reward networks of the striatum.

No wonder, then, that adolescents get better at controlling their impulses. Only gradually does the “control” part of the brain take firm control over the “impulse” part of the brain.

Teaching Implications

Insel’s research shows not only THAT teens don’t effectively distinguish between high- and low-stakes; it helps explain WHY they don’t: the appropriate brain networks haven’t fully matured.

This research suggests that high-stakes testing just might not be developmentally appropriate for this age group.

After all: adults recognize the importance of high-stakes work. We know to prepare for job interviews differently than we do for daily meetings. We know to be on our best behavior when we meet potential future in-laws; perhaps we relax a bit once they’re actual in-laws.

Teens, however, just don’t recognize that distinction as well.

In other words: if you needed another reason to downplay high-stakes testing, Insel and Somerville’s research provides just that.

More to Know

If you’re particularly interesting in this topic, we’ve posted about it frequently on this blog.

Here’s a link to Somerville’s work, in which she explores the boundaries between adolescence ad adulthood.

Here’s a Ted-talk by Sarah-Jayne Blakemore exploring the mysteries of adolescence.

Richard Cash is running an LatB Workshop specifically on self-regulation. You can check it out here. And, I’m running a Learning and the Brain workshop on teaching adolescents in April. Click here if you’re interested in learning more.

 

Point/Counterpoint: Escaping the Inquiry Learning Debate
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March-24-2018

Point/Counterpoint: Escaping the Inquiry Learning Debate

Read More

Several days ago, I posted some thoughts about the benefits of Direct Instruction. That post specifically contrasted the benefits of DI with the perils Inquiry Learning. Specifically, Hattie finds Inquiry Learning to be largely ineffective.assessing inquiry learning

The Learning Scientists have also published some skeptical thoughts about Inquiry Learning. In their most recent weekly digest, to promote balance, they offer links to some pro-Inquiry-Learning counter-arguments. If you’re an IL skeptic, you might want to check them out.

Assessing Inquiry Learning: What’s a Teacher to Do?

When we face conflicting evidence about any particular pedagogy, teachers can always focus instead on specific cognitive capacities.

For example: working memory.

If an Inquiry Learning lesson plan ramps working memory demands up too steeply, then students probably won’t learn very much.

Of course: if a Direct Instruction lesson plan ramps up WM demands, then those students won’t learn very much either.

The key variable — in this analysis — is not the specifics of the pedagogical approach. Instead, teachers can focus on the match between our teaching and the cognitive apparatus that allows learning.

In other words: overwhelming working memory is ALWAYS bad — it doesn’t matter if your lesson plan is DI or IL.

The same point can be made for other cognitive capacities.

Lesson plans that disorient students — that is, ones that interfere with attention — will hamper learning. So too motivation. So too stress.

When assessing Inquiry Learning, don’t ask yourself “does my lesson plan fit this pedagogical theory perfectly?” Ask yourself: “does my lesson plan realistically align with my students’ cognitive systems?”

The answer to that question will give you the wisest guidance.

Uniquely Human: How Animals Differ From People
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March-21-2018

Uniquely Human: How Animals Differ From People

Read More

What separates humans from other animals? What makes us uniquely human?

uniquely humanThis question can be fun to debate. The most common answers — “tool use” and “language” — have their champions. However, lots of animals communicate with sounds. Several species use tools.

These abilities are rare among animals; however, they’re not uniquely human. So: what might be the key distinction?

M&Ms and Pencils

Imagine this scenario.

A young girl comes into your office with her father. You show her a box full of M&Ms. The father then leaves the room, and you — quite conspicuously — pour out the M&Ms and replace them with pencils.

When the father comes back into the room, you ask the young girl “What does your father think is in the box?”

A five-year-old answers this question quite easily. Even though she watched you put pencils in the box, she also knows that her father wasn’t there when that happened. As a result, his knowledge differs from hers. He (falsely) believes that the box contains M&Ms, although she (correctly) knows that it contains pencils.

A three-year-old, however, can’t manage this duality. If she knows there are pencils in the box, then she thinks everyone knows there are pencils in the box. She simply can’t process the idea that others have false factual beliefs.

This ability to distinguish between what I know and what you know goes by the awkward name “theory of mind.”

Most 5-year-olds have theory of mind; they know that you and I have different ideas in our heads. Most 3-year-olds don’t have theory of mind. They believe that everything they know is known by everyone else.

Uniquely Human: Candidate #1

In The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, Michael Tomasello argues that theory of mind is the uniquely human cognitive trait.

Because humans think about what other humans are thinking, we have been able to develop our environment (think, skyscrapers) and our cognitive capabilities (think, calculus) with astonishing rapidity.

Each generation can hang onto the ideas developed by previous generations, and so progress beyond them.

Here’s a very basic example:

I might say to you: “A platypus is in the elevator.”

Or I might say: “The platypus is in the elevator.”

This tiny linguistic difference (“a” vs. “the”) shows that I’m considering what you already know. In the first sentence, you don’t know about the platypus — even though I do. In the second sentence, we both know about it.

Tomasello connects theory of mind to human culture and development with remarkable dexterity and clarity; I highly recommend his book. (He’s also a lively speaker, if you ever have the opportunity to hear him.)

Uniquely Human: Candidate #2

Only recently I stumbled across another possibility: the ability to remember sequences.

Stefano Ghirlanda and colleagues looked at research considering the ability to learn sequences among a variety of species: various birds, macaques, even dolphins.

It turns out that humans can pick up complex sequences quite quickly.

In one study, for example, humans listened to a sequence of sounds, and were able to remember them with 90+% accuracy after 6-8 trials. Zebra finches, however, took between 300 and 800 trials to achieve the same level of accuracy — even though the sounds were zebra finch song syllables.

In another study, rats could learn what to do after individual signals with relative ease. To learn a series of signals, however, took on the order of 10,000 trials. You read that right: ten thousand.

(Imagine being the graduate student whose job it was to do all 10,000 trials.)

Ghirlanda and colleagues argue that sequence processing underlies all sorts of complex human cognition: episodic memory (this happened before that), planning (step one, then step two, then step three), even music (this series of notes isn’t that series of notes).

Without our ability to process those sequences, we would hardly be human.

Limitations

Like all studies, this one has limitations.

First, Ghirlanda and colleagues note that other species are good at remembering sequences that have to do with evolutionarily important processes: the steps required to capture food, for instance, or to attract a mate.

However, in addition, humans are good at remembering arbitrary sequences. Music helps in finding a mate, but it isn’t required. So too: math might be sexy, but it isn’t required for wooing.

Second, although Ghilranda did find research with other mammals, they did not find research with apes. It’s possible that they have the ability to learn arbitrary sequences.

Perhaps, in other words, this ability helps make us human, but isn’t uniquely human. Until we study more species, we can’t know for sure.

[For other thoughts on evolution and learning, click here.]

Teens and Cell Phones: The Good, The Bad, The (Not So) Ugly
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March-19-2018

Teens and Cell Phones: The Good, The Bad, The (Not So) Ugly

Read More

Teens and Cell Phones

A recent article in Nature magazine wisely captures the complexities of the Great Cell Phone Debate.

Will they transform human potential?

Will they destroy our children’s self-confidence, not to mention their ability to hold a simple conversation? Their ability to pay attention in class?

(For earlier articles on these topics, see here and here.)

Researcher Candice Odgers offers a simple formula to answer those questions:

“In general, the adolescents who encounter more adversity in their offline lives seem most likely to experience the negative effects of using smartphones and other digital devices.”

That is, the cell phone isn’t causing the problems. For children who already struggle, however, it might exacerbate existing problems.

Teens and Cell Phones: The Good

You might be surprised to read Odgers’s list of digital benefits. Several studies show that teen texting can foster healthy relationships.

6-12 year-olds with solid social relationships are likelier to keep in digital communication with peers as they get older.

Virtual conversations can even help teens “bounce back after social rejection.”

Clearly, cell phones aren’t destroying our children’s ability to create healthy relationships. (Of course, the form those relationships take looks quite different from those of our youths. Or, at least, my youth.)

Teens and Cell Phones: The Bad

As Odgers sees the research, socio-economic status might be a key variable.

The “digital divide” used to mean that rich people had technology that others didn’t. Today, it’s more likely to mean that affluent parents can supervise their children’s digital lives more consistently than less-affluent parents.

“What we’re seeing now is a new kind of digital divide, in which differences in online experiences are amplifying risks among already-vulnerable populations.”

So: for low-income families, online fights lead to real world fights more often. So too bullying.

A Final Point

Complaints about teens and cell phones often miss a crucial point: they get those cell phones from us.

Odgers’s own research shows that 48% of 11-year-olds in North Carolina have cell phones. I’m guessing that relatively few of those 11-year-olds bought those phones — and the data plans — with their own money.

Also: adolescents did not invent the cell phone. They aren’t running companies that make huge profits from their sale.

Odgers’s article suggests that we should focus our concerns not on teens overall, but on those who are already struggling in their daily, non-virtual lives. I suggest, in addition, that we should focus on adult participation in this digital culture.

We are, after all, the ones who make their digital lives possible.

Feeling the Possibilities: Virtual Reality and Teaching
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March-17-2018

Feeling the Possibilities: Virtual Reality and Teaching

Read More

Regular readers of this blog know that I like technology, but I’m not easily wowed about its educational uses. From my perspective, many “you just have to try this” technologies fail to produce nearly as much learning as they promise.

(Some of my concerns show up here and here. But: I’m a champion of laptop notes here.)

VR haptics + Pedagogy

At an evolutionary level, our species evolved interacting with real, live other people. Our basic perceptual and emotional systems often work best when we’re learning with and from them.

All that being said, I’m REALLY interested in the educational possibilities that this new technology might offer.

As you’ll see in the video below, combining virtual reality (VR) with advanced haptic feedback produces remarkably persuasive visual and physical experiences.

The video’s host — a professed VR skeptic — is obviously giddy by the end of his trial.

Potential VR+haptics pedagogy

Several kinds of learning might well be much more persuasive (and interesting) with this VR/haptics combination. Physics problems with mass and momentum and magnetism, for example, lend themselves to this kind of exploration.

(As you’ll see in the video, our host can feel the weight of the virtual rock he lifts.)

Another possibility: As our research into embodied cognition gets better, we might be able to translate those strategies into VR/haptics pedagogy. (For an introduction to embodied cognition, see Sian Beilock’s book How the Body Knows Its Mind.)

For example, Susan Goldin-Meadow has done considerable research showing that different hand motions improve mathematics learning. These gloves just might make such problems more physically — and therefore cognitively — persuasive.

Just watch the video; you’ll see what I mean. (By the way: I’m not endorsing any of the products advertised here. They’re an unavoidable part of the video.)

 

 

The Mindset Controversy: Is It Time to Give Up?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March-15-2018

The Mindset Controversy: Is It Time to Give Up?

Read More

Few theories have gotten more teacherly attention than Carol Dweck’s work on Mindset.

As you no doubt know, she has found that a “fixed mindset” (the belief that ability and intelligence can’t really change) demotivates people. On the other hand, a “growth mindset” (the belief that the right kind of hard work enhances ability) promotes intrinsic motivation.

mindset controversy(We’ve posted about Mindset several times, including here and here.)

Because it’s so well known, Dweck’s theory is a popular target. You’ll often read that this or that study disproves her argument. For years now, this mindset controversy has raged on.

The Mindset Controversy: This Week’s Big News

Scholars at Case Western Reserve University looked at over 300 Mindset studies, and found…not much. By looking at all the relevant research, rather than just the well-known or successful studies, they got a comprehensive view.

That view showed only very modest effects.

Here’s lead author Brooke Macnamara (by the way, the word “significant” here means “statistically significant” not “deeply meaningful”):

“We found a significant but weak relationship between growth mindsets and academic achievement, and a significant, but small effect of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement.” (source)

Predictably, this meta-analysis has produced lots of strong responses.

Nick Soderstrom–a researcher whose work I admire–mused on Twitter that Mindset is “the new learning styles.” That is: a theory which lots of people believe, but which doesn’t have empirical support.

[Editor’s note, added 3/23/18: Dr. Soderstrom has responded to this post, and his comment includes this important point: “After seeing that you referenced one of my tweets, I feel compelled to mention that none of my tweets comparing growth mindset to learning styles have been assertive in nature. That is, I have never said that mindset IS the new learning styles. Indeed, such an assertion would be unfair and irresponsible at this point. Rather, I’ve simply asked the question and expressed my concern that it might be heading in that direction. I just don’t want your readers to assume that I’ve made up my mind on the utility of mindset interventions because I certainly haven’t. More evidence, or the lack thereof, is needed for that to happen.” My thanks for this clarification. You can see his full comment below.]

 

If, in fact, Mindset interventions just don’t do very much, should we stop?

Mindset Controversy: Don’t Give Up The Ship

I myself am still on board with mindset, and for several reasons.

First: other people have looked at large populations and found impressive effects.

For instance, this report found that for some groups of students, a growth mindset basically added an extra month’s worth of learning to school. Mind you, these authors looked at data for 125,000+ students to reach this conclusion.

Other thoughtful scholars and wise skeptics, have written sympathetically about Mindset. Here, for example, is recent article by John Hattie — not one to accept a theory simply because it’s popular.

Second: we should ask not simply “do Mindset interventions work?” but “do they work compared to something else?”

Mindset seeks to influence students’ motivation, and motivation is notoriously hard to influence. So, I’m not surprised it doesn’t produce dramatic changes. To get my attention in the world of motivation, even a small boost will do.

Third: Dweck is a famously careful scholar. When others criticize her work, she doesn’t ignore them; she doesn’t rant; she doesn’t change the subject. Instead, she accepts fair critiques and updates her thinking.

For example: many of Dweck’s early studies focused on the importance of hard work. You have to work hard to learn most anything, and students need to accept that.

Teachers and scholars offered a reasonable rejoinder. Some students do work hard and yet don’t learn, because they’re doing the wrong kind of work. We need a more precise phrase.

Accepting this criticism, Dweck now speaks of the right kind of hard work. She listened, and refined her theory appropriately.

Next Steps

A: I’ll be curious to hear what Dweck has to say once she’s digested this new information.

B: we should keep our eyes out for new theories of motivation that provide genuine assistance to teachers and students.

C: we should, of course, not overhype Mindset interventions. Until we get a better theory, however, we can call on these strategies at the right moments to help deepen our students’s motivation.

The Benefits (?) of Interactive Online Science Teaching
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
March-12-2018

The Benefits (?) of Interactive Online Science Teaching

Read More

Few educational innovations have gotten more hype than online learning, and few have a more checkered track record.

interactive online scienceFor every uplifting story we hear about a Khan Academy success, we get at least one story about massive drop-out rates for MOOCs.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that people are just better at learning face to face than from a computer.

And so a recent study deserves our attention. And — like all other research — it also merits our respectful skepticism.

Three Headlines, and a Warning

First Headline: middle schoolers learned A LOT more science from an interactive online curriculum than from a more traditional one.

Second Headline: learning gains seem impressive for students with learning disabilities, and for English language learners.

and

Third Headline: the program was tested with more than 2300 students and 71 teachers in 13 schools in two different states: Oregon and Georgia. That is: this study isn’t about 30 college students in a psychology lab. It’s about real students in real classrooms at opposite ends of the country.

And now, the Warnings: I’m going to give you reasons to be skeptical about all of this. (Well, at least the first two headlines.)

Interactive Online Science Teaching

Researchers developed four units aligned with national science standards. These units, each roughly 10-14 weeks long, covered such topics as Knowing My Body and Our Place in the Universe.

We should note that researchers brought several theoretical perspectives to these science units. They took care to make them culturally relevant to the learners. They designed each unit with project-based learning principals in mind.

And, they made sure that students could interact with the material in different ways. Middle schoolers could control the pace of the lesson, move images around on the screen, get feedback, and navigate among several sources of information.

Even from this brief description, you can see how this interactive online science lesson could be especially appealing — and potentially especially effective — for 7th and 8th graders.

(You can learn more about the curriculum at this website.)

Results: By The Numbers…

First, the online units helped students learn.

In the control group, where teachers taught as they typically had done, students improved 5.7% from pretest to posttest. In the treatment group, where teachers used the units described above, students improved 16.7%.

When the researchers looked at students with learning disabilities and at English language learners, the raw data also showed promising improvements.

For ELL students, for example, the control group improved 4.9%, whereas the treatment group improved 15.0%.

Reasons for Concern #1: “Active Controls”

Researchers compared students who used their online curriculum to others who did not. This comparison to a “control group” allows them to say that their curriculum is better than the old way.

However, it’s quite possible that the students in the treatment group responded well simply because they did something different. In other words: perhaps the online curriculum didn’t help students learn, but the change of daily routine did.

The only way to rule out this possibility is to have the control group do something new as well. If the new online curriculum produces more learning than some other new curriculum, then we can reasonably conclude that the curriculum itself made the difference.

After all, in this hypothetical case, we can’t say that just changing something made a difference; both groups changed something.

However, because the control group in this study wasn’t “active” — that is, they didn’t do anything different or special — we can’t be certain why the researchers found the results they did. Maybe it was the interactive online science curriculum. But maybe it was just the change of pace.

The researchers’ own video — linked to above — highlights this concern. One of the teachers who used the online units says that she liked them because teachers simply hadn’t had an organized curriculum in the past. Each teacher had put something together on her own.

If that’s true for the schools in the control group, then this study compares schools that had no consistent, professionally developed curriculum at all with schools that had a curriculum developed by a Oregon University’s School of Education.

In other words: the benefit could come from having any well developed curriculum, not specifically this curriculum. Or not an online curriculum.

We simply can’t know.

Reason for Concern #2: Goodies

There’s no neutral way to say this. Teachers assigned to the online curriculum got a big gift bag. Teachers in the control group got dinky gift bags.

More specifically: teachers in the control group got a $300 bump. (Admittedly, that’s a nice perk for not having to do anything special.)

Teachers who used the online curriculum got $1500. (That’s a REALLY nice perk.) It’s five times as much.

And, they got some cool technology. And, they got extra PD and instructional resources. They even got 2 days of paid subs so they could attend that PD.

For all these reasons, it’s possible that the students did better with the online science curriculum because it helped them learn. It’s also possible that they did better because their teachers were really excited by all the loot they got.

Again, because of the study design, we simply can’t know.

What Should Teachers Do?

In my view, the jury is still out on online curricula.

On the one hand, they seem like a really good idea. On the other hand, the evidence in their favor is, at best, equivocal.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, 20 years from now, we all clapped our hand to our foreheads and asked, what were we thinking?

In other words: we can’t yet look to research to be certain of an answer. If you have an opportunity that appeals to your teacherly instincts, give it a try.

If it works, let me know. If not, don’t worry that you might be doing something wrong. After all: humans evolved learning face to face. It’s just possible that the e-version of that experience will never be as good.

Older posts
Newer posts