L&B Blog – Page 54 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content

Category Archives: L&B Blog

Older posts
Newer posts
Can You Resist the Seductive Allure of Neuroscience?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 23, 2018

Can You Resist the Seductive Allure of Neuroscience?

Read More

The seductive allure of neuroscience often blinds us.

seductive allure of neuroscience

In fact, the image on the right shows the part of the brain — the focal geniculative nucleus — that lights up when we’re taken in by false neuroscience information.

Ok, no it doesn’t.

I’ve just grabbed a random picture of a brain with some color highlights.

And: as far as I know, the “focal geniculative nucleus” doesn’t exist. I just made that up.

(By the way: brain regions don’t really “light up.” That’s a way of describing what happens in an fMRI image. You’re really looking at changes in blood flow, indicated by different colors. Brains aren’t Christmas trees or smokers; they don’t light up.)

And yet, for some reason, a picture of a brain with some bits highlighted in color just makes us go wild with credulity.

The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience: Today’s Research

We’ve known for a while that people believe general psychology research more readily when it includes a picture of a brain.

Is that also true for research in educational psychology? That is, does this problem include research in teaching?

Soo-hyun Im investigated this question with quite a straightforward method. He explained educational research findings to several hundred people.

Some of those findings included extraneous neuroscience information. (“This process takes place in the focal geniculative nucleus.”)

Some also included a meaningless graph.

And some also included an irrelevant brain image (like the one above).

Sure enough: people believed the claims with the irrelevant brain image more than they did the same claim without that image.

In fact, as discussed in this earlier post, even teachers with neuroscience training can be taken in by misleading science claims.

Teaching Implications

If you’re reading this blog, if you’re attending Learning and the Brain conferences, you are almost certainly really interested in brains.

You want to know more about synapses and neurotransmitters and the occipital cortex. You probably wish that the focal geniculative nucleus really did exist. (Sorry, it doesn’t.)

On the one hand, this fascination offers teachers real benefits. For a number of reasons, I think it helps (some) teachers to know more about the process of synapse formation, or to recognize parts of the brain that participate in error detection.

At the same time, this interest confers upon us special responsibilities.

If we’re going to rely on brain explanations to support our teaching methods, then we should get in the habit of asking tough-minded questions.

Why are you showing me this brain image? Is the claim credible without the image?

What does that highlighted brain region have to do with learning?

Who says so? Can you cite some articles?

If the person presenting the information can’t — or won’t — answer these questions, then put down the fMRI image and step away from the research.

The teaching method itself might be sound, but the brain claims behind it are simply relying on the seductive allure of neuroscience.

Like Odysseus, you might be tempted — but do not give in to these neuro-Sirens.

Daring to Flip the Public Health Classroom
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 19, 2018

Daring to Flip the Public Health Classroom

Read More

“Flipping the classroom” has been around long enough now to have its own Wikipedia page.

flipped classroom for adult learners

Proponents suggest that this strategy allows teachers to focus less on direct instruction and more on collaboration, problem solving, and application.

Critics respond that direct instruction offers many benefits. They also wonder if we are fooling ourselves by claiming that students learn deeply by watching videos at home.

Most discussion of flipped classrooms focuses on younger grades: its potential for teaching mitosis or long-division or the basics of circuitry.

What about adult learners? Can flipped classrooms help them learn?

Flipped Classroom for Adult Learners

A just-published study looks at a Principles of  Epidemiology course for grad students at Columbia University.

In 2015, instructors taught in the “traditional” way: 90 minutes of lecture, followed by 90 minutes of discussion.

In 2016, they flipped the classroom: “pre-recorded lectures [were] viewed outside the classroom setting (at home), and in-person classroom time [was] devoted to interactive exercises, discussion, or group projects.”

So: who learned more?

By practically every measure, it just didn’t make much difference.

For instance: at the midterm, the median grade in the traditional class was 94.0. In the flipped class, it was … 94.4.

On the final exam, the median traditional grade was — again — 94.0. The flipped class median was 92.5.

(If you look at mean grades instead of median, there is a slight — and statistically trivial — advantage for the flipped classroom.)

Whose Benefit?

Although these grad students didn’t learn any more epidemiology, they did prefer the flipped-classroom format. Why? Because it gave them greater flexibility in their otherwise over-scheduled and hectic lives.

If schools can promote the same amount of learning more conveniently, then that strategy feels like a real win.

At the same time, it’s not clear that this benefit transfers to younger learners.

  • Would they be as conscientious as these graduate students in watching the videos?
  • Are flipped-classroom self-tests typically as in-depth as the ones in this study? (That is: this study included excellent study questions — you can check them out on page 4.)
  • Are most students juggling work-life balance difficulties the way that these graduate students are?

In other words: flipped classrooms simplified schedules for these graduate students — even though they didn’t improve learning.

Whether or not that benefit transfers to K-12 students, however, depends a great deal on the specific circumstances that those students face.

Can You Rely on Meta-analysis? Can You Doubt It?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 16, 2018

Can You Rely on Meta-analysis? Can You Doubt It?

Read More

Over at his blog Filling the Pail, Greg Ashman likes challenging popular ideas. In a recent post, he takes issue with meta-analysis as a way of analyzing educational research.

In the first place, Ashman argues — in effect —  “garbage in, garbage out.” Combining badly-designed studies with well-designed studies still gives some weight to the badly-designed ones.

Of course, Ashman has some thoughtful suggestions as well.

Why Does It Matter?

Why should we care about such an obscure and complicated statistical technique?

Meta-analysis matters because we pay so much attention to it.

For instance: just a month ago, a pair of meta-analyses about Mindset Theory set off another round of anxiety. Edu-twitter lit right up with thoughtful scholars wondering if we should stop focusing so much on the right kind of praise.

Or: I frequently rebut claims about working memory training by citing this well-known meta-analysis by Melby-Lervag and Hulme.

If we’re going to rely so much on this technique, we should be clear-minded about its strengths and its weaknesses.

When Bad Technology Is Good Instead
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 14, 2018

When Bad Technology Is Good Instead

Read More

Teachers have a love/hate relationship with technology.

technology good newsIn some cases, technology provides exciting opportunities to enhance teaching. (Here‘s a recent post about virtual reality technology, and another about classroom clickers.)

In other cases, however, it distracts our students, muddles their thinking, and interferes with their healthy relationships.

Action video games and cell phones take most of the heat in these discussions. Who’s got anything good to say about either?

Technology Good News: Video Games

We’ve got lots of evidence to suggest that action video games improve visual attention. All that virtual racing around, all that shooting at monsters and aliens seems to heighten our visual systems.

A recent study in China wondered how quickly video games might might produce this effect. They reached two conclusions.

First: expert video game players do better on tests of visual attention than beginners. Basically, their peripheral vision is more acute.

And, EEG data show that specific brain regions process visual information more efficiently for these experts. The details aren’t important — EEG data are very difficult to summarize — but the results are clear. Playing action video games trains up visual attention.

Second: the beginning video-game players improved their visual attention after only one hour of play.

Their peripheral vision improved from before to after. And, the EEG data showed more expert-like processing of visual information.

Yup. After JUST ONE HOUR.

Now, the study doesn’t show that this improvement will last. Presumably it takes more than an hour to create enduring changes in such sophisticated cognitive systems.

But, it’s impressive to see how quickly those changes start taking place.

Technology Good News: Video Games (Part 2)

Although “visual attention” sounds like a good thing to have, we might nonetheless worry that action video games have other bad effects.

For example, they might interfere with our students’ ability to make friends. We’ve all seen enough lonely nerdy gamers in movies to wonder about their real-life counterparts.

Well, according to two recent studies from Sweden, we needn’t worry. Gamers are just as likely to befriend their peers as non-gamers: “high-use did not make game users socially isolated or less popular in school.” In fact, gamers often make friends with other gamers in the real world.

Perhaps Swedish and American cultural contexts are so different that these results don’t apply to our students. However, that objection seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Of course, we might still be concerned about video games. One of my grad-school professors forbade his children from playing Grand Theft Auto because its messages struck him as so deeply anti-social. He nonetheless showed us lots of research suggesting that video games really don’t have all the bad effects that people worry about.

Technology Good News: Smart Phones

I got a question about “cell phone addiction” from a teacher just last week. As a society — and as teachers within that society — we’re deeply concerned about children’s relationships with this portable slice of technology.

A recently-published think piece offers a fresh perspective on the dangers of cell phones. Its authors don’t discount those dangers; the specifically note correlations of cell-phone use with anxiety and loneliness.

Instead, they reframe them within an evolutionary perspective. Humans have evolved to be highly social beings, and practically everything we do with cell phones — texts, chats, conversations, schedules, even games — is ultimately largely social.

In other words: we’re not addicted to cell phones. We’re addicted to the social possibilities they allow us.

If we rethink cell-phone use, and strategies to manage cell-phone use, within this perspective, we might be considerably more effective in helping curb addictive impulses.

We might also be quicker to see the healthy benefits of technology: when used best, it helps us develop cognitive function and connect with the broader social world.

These findings strike me as good news indeed.

 

Vital Resources in Psychology: the Best Research for Teachers
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 11, 2018

Vital Resources in Psychology: the Best Research for Teachers

Read More

vital resources in psychologyOver the last ten years, I’ve found many articles and studies that I return to frequently.  Some summarize lots of research suggestions. Others explore particular questions with verve and clarity.

I hope you enjoy these as much as I do.

Vital Resources in Psychology: Big Lists

Our students often confuse PERFORMANCE (a high score on a test) with LEARNING (enduring knowledge and skill). Nick Soderstrom sorts through all kinds of evidence to help teachers distinguish between the two. Helpfully, he includes evidence for both physical and cognitive learning.

Learning versus Performance: An Integrative Review, by Nick Soderstrom and Robert Bjork

This comprehensive (!) article examines research behind ten well-known teaching practices: from underlining to retrieval practice. In each case, it looks at the quality of evidence. It then helps you choose those that fit your subject and your students best. (Danger: several sacred oxen gored here.)

Improving Students’ Learning with Effective Learning Techniques, by John Dunlosky (and many others)

Deans for Impact have boiled their suggestions to a list of six. You’ve got everything here from motivation to transfer. It also offers a solid list of sources when you want to check out the primary research.

The Science of Learning, by Deans for Impact

Vital Resources: Enlightening Studies

Regular readers of this blog know that “retrieval practice” helps students learn MUCH more effectively than simple review does. In brief: don’t have students reread a chapter. Have them quiz each other on the chapter. This kind of active recall fosters new learning. In this splendid study, a researcher, a teacher, and a principal move this finding out of the psychology lab and into the classroom.

The Value of Applied Research: Retrieval Practice Improves Classroom Learning and Recommendations from a Teacher, a Principal, and a Scientist, by Agarwal, Bain, and Chamberlain

In this marvelous study, researchers wonder if testing students on material before they’ve even seen it might help them ultimately learn it better. Here’s the fun part: when their first study suggests the answer is “yes,” they then repeat the study four more times in an attempt to prove themselves wrong.  Only when they can’t come up with any other explanations for their findings do they finally persuade themselves.

The Pretesting Effect: Do Unsuccessful Retrieval Attempts Enhance Learning?, by Richland, Kornell, and Kau

 

 

Don’t “Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 09, 2018

Don’t “Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain”

Read More

Today’s post is a bit more informal and personal than usual.

When I first started attending Learning and the Brain conferences in 2008, I looked at the presenters as Speakers of Truth from a Platform of Verity.

They KNEW THINGS. They had DONE RESEARCH.

I wasn’t there to ask questions. I was there to write down what they told me.

Evolving Perspective

Over the last ten years, I’ve learned to think differently about the relationship between research and understanding. Research always begins as a cheerfully contentious conversation among competing theories.

Can people pay attention for more than 10 minutes? Researchers argue about that.

Does retrieval practice have limits? Researchers argue about that.

Is Mindset a thing? Researchers argue about that A LOT.

I’m also gradually learning to think differently about researchers themselves.

In the past, they struck me as distant, awe-inspiring figures. They were busy, out questing for truth.

I would no sooner have interrupted a researcher to ask a question than I would have interrupted a surgeon mid-slice. They’ve got better things to do.

And yet, I’m learning how eager many researchers are to connect with teachers.

Today’s Uplifiting News

In the last two weeks, I have sent emails to six different researchers, asking them questions about the classroom implications of their work.

To be clear: I’ve never met any of these researchers. I’ve certainly never had the chance to do anything for them. I was, in other words, a total stranger asking a question out of the blue.

You know what? Five of those six have responded; three of them responded in about 2 hours. (I’m still hoping to hear from #6.)

In fact, they all responded substantively and enthusiastically. They liked my questions, had specific suggestions, and pointed me to other articles to check out.

They didn’t see my question as an intrusion, but as an invitation to a teaching conversation they were glad to join.

I’m not naming these researchers here because I don’t want them to be swamped with email. But I do hope you feel as encouraged as I do. If you’ve got a question about the study you just read — for example, how best to make it work in your classroom — you just might reach out to the study’s author.

You might very well start a fascinating conversation.

Training Working Memory: Bad News, and Surprising Great News
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson
April 06, 2018

Training Working Memory: Bad News, and Surprising Great News

Read More

Regular readers of this blog know that I’m very skeptical about training working memory. Despite all the promises, most studies show that WM training just doesn’t do very much.

working memory training

Better said: working memory training helps people do better on other, similar working memory tests. But it doesn’t help students learn to read or calculate or analyze any better.

(Earlier posts on this topic here and here.)

But here’s a tantalizing possibility: what if we could find an even better shortcut to cognitive success?

Training Working Memory: News from Finland

Researchers at Abo Akademi University in Turku wondered why WM training works in psychology labs, but not in classrooms.

(One of the champions of WM training — Dr. Susanne Jaeggi — has spoken at Learning and the Brain conferences. If you’ve seen her, you know she’s an incredibly impressive researcher. You too might reasonably wonder why that research isn’t panning out.)

These Finnish researchers wondered if the WM training simply gave students the chance to figure out a particular WM strategy.

That is: they didn’t have more working memory. But, they were using the WM they already had more strategically.

This strategy applied to the specific working memory task (which is why their WM scores seemed to get better), but doesn’t apply to other cognitive work (like math and reading).

If that hypothesis is true, then we could simply tell our students that strategy. We would then see the same pattern of WM development that comes from the training — only much faster.

Specifically, we would expect to see improvement in similar WM tasks — where students could apply the same strategy — but not on unrelated tasks — where that strategy doesn’t help.

If their hypothesis is correct, then the results that take 6 WEEKS of training might be available in 30 MINUTES. Rather than have students figure out the strategy on their own (the slow, 6 week version), we can simply tell them the strategy and let them practice (the 30 minute version).

The Test, the Results

The Finnish researchers worked with three groups of adults.

Control group #1 did a WM test on Monday and a WM test on Friday. They got no practice; they got no training.

Control group #2 also did WM tests on Monday and Friday. In between, they got to practice a WM task for 30 minutes. This is a mini-version of the WM training model. (If they had gotten the full six weeks, they might have figured out the strategy on their own.)

The study group — lucky devils — were TOLD a strategy to use during their practice session. (More on this strategy below.)

What did the researchers find?

First: As they predicted, the group that was told the strategy made rapid progress, but the other two groups didn’t.

Control group #1 didn’t make progress because they didn’t even get to practice. Control group #2 did practice…but they didn’t have enough time to figure out the strategy.

Only the study group made progress because only they knew the strategy.

Second: As researchers predicted, the group that learned the strategy didn’t get better at WM tasks unrelated to the strategy they learned.

In other words: the group given a strategy behaved just like earlier groups who had discovered that strategy for themselves during 6 weeks of practice. They did better at related WM tasks, but not at unrelated tasks.

We don’t need 6 weeks to get those results. We can get them in 30 minutes.

What, exactly, is this magical strategy?

The precise strategy depends on the working memory exercise being tested.

In general, the answer is: visualize the data in patterns. If you’ve visualized the pattern correctly, you can more easily perform the assigned WM task.

You can check out page 10 of this PDF; you’ll see right away what the strategy is, and why it helps solve some WM problems. You’ll also see why it doesn’t particularly help with other WM tasks — like, for example, understanding similes or multiplying exponents.

Training Working Memory: Classroom Implications

This research suggests that we shouldn’t train students’ general WM capacity, because we can’t. Instead, we should find specific WM strategies that most resemble the cognitive activity we want our students to do.

Those strategies allow students to use the WM they have more effectively. With the same WM capacity, they can accomplish more WM work.

The key question is: what WM strategies are most like school tasks?

We don’t yet know the answer to that question. (I’ve reached out to the lead author to see if she has thoughts on the matter.)

I do have a suspicion, and here it is: perhaps the practice that we’re already doing is the best kind. That is: maybe the working memory exercise that’s most like subtraction is subtraction. The working memory exercise most like reading is reading.

If I’m right, then we don’t need to devise fancy new WM exercises. The great news just might be: the very best WM exercise already exists, and it’s called “school.”

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.

Older posts
Newer posts