Research into Growth Mindsets often focuses on small groups of people: a class or two of 5th graders, a few dozen college students.
These studies allow researchers to draw conclusions about this specific group of students. However, we’re less sure about the sub-populations.
How does Mindset influence English Language Learners? Female students? Students from different social strata?
The hormone/neurotransmitter oxytocin has developed a great brand.
It gets credit for all sorts of good things. When new lovers meet, their giddy glow might result from oxytocin. When mothers hold their babies, oxytocin seems to widen their smiles.
Little wonder, then, that oxytocin has earned the nickname “the love hormone.”
You’ve heard a lot of information about neurons at the Learning and the Brain conferences that you attend. Perhaps a quick review would be helpful to consolidate your learning?
![AdobeStock_121864954 [Converted]_Credit](https://braindevs.net/blog//wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AdobeStock_121864954-Converted_Credit.jpg)
You have no doubt seen the tidy pyramid: students remember 5% of what they hear in a lecture, 10% of what they read, 20% of what they see, and so forth.
In crafting such a pyramid, its creators promote more active kinds of learning. The bottom of the pyramid, for example, might be “teaching others”: a highly active kind of learning that seems to generate all sorts of learning.
The problem with the pyramid is not merely that it’s inaccurate, but that it’s incoherent. The Effortful Educator does a nice job of pointing out its obvious flaws, and of backing up his critique with specific sources.
As an easy introduction to that critique: any research producing numbers that are all divisible by 5 does seem rather suspicious…
(I first heard this critique from Charles Fadel at a Learning and the Brain conference in San Francisco 3 or 4 years ago. It just so happens that he’ll be speaking at the upcoming LatB conference–although on a different subject.)
The important lesson here goes beyond “always check the sources.” After all, if you look to see if this pyramid has been published elsewhere, you’ll find all sorts of examples.
Instead, the point is “always check the specific claims.” In this case, for example, you don’t need to see if someone has published a similar pyramid before; you need to see how the author supports the specific claim that students remember only 5% of what they hear in a lecture.
In fact, you should be most interested in research that focuses on students like yours.
Let’s imagine you found a study showing that students in a college art history class remembered 80% of what they heard in a lecture. That’s very interesting to college art history teachers–especially those who teach in the same way this particular professor does.
But, if you teach 5th graders, it doesn’t really help you very much.
Graphical representation of data can be inspiring: that’s one reason to be certain that the information in the graphic is correct.
[Addendum: 1/27/18] I’ve recently gotten some additional data on the “Learning Pyramid” from Charles Fadel. Enjoy!Fadel Multimodal Learning Through Media – What the research says
Several years ago I taught Jacob: an affable high school sophomore notable for his quick wit, his impressive height…and his immaturity. He was, technically speaking, goofy. Jacob’s peers noticed, and didn’t appreciate his antics. (Neither did I.)
When I met his parents for a teacher conference, I commented on his surprisingly juvenile behavior. They exchanged glances, and his mother said: “Well, he is the youngest student in the sophomore class. He could be a freshman.”
This news made all the difference to me. I had been fooled by Jacob’s 6′ 2″ frame. His behavior, odd for a 10th grader, was entirely appropriate for a 9th grader. When I started giving the structure he needed, he calmed down. And grew up.
By the end of the year, he worked with his classmates very effectively.
A recent BrainBlogger post describes the Jacobs of the educational world. If a school has a strict cut-off date for a particular grade, then some students will be almost a full year younger than others.
In college, this difference shouldn’t matter much. After all, 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds should be emotionally and cognitively well matched.
In younger grades, however, that age difference can be huge. The age-appropriate developmental differences between the youngest and the oldest kindergartener might be substantial.
BrainBlogger’s author–identified only by her first name Naomi–outlines the alarming and ongoing consequences of this early developmental gap.
At the same time, Naomi is careful to note the complexity of the question.
In the first place, as she writes, “the impact of [relative age effects] on educational attainment is…probabilistic not deterministic.” That is, some younger students will do just fine, even if their group is less likely to do so.
In fact, some research shows the advantages of being at the younger end of a grade’s age spectrum. For instance, younger students get the message that they need to work harder to succeed as much as their older peers, and so might have a better work ethic.
If you’d like to think more about this complex question, I’d start by looking over Naomi’s article. She lays out the research well, and includes sources from many different countries.
In the meanwhile, you’ve now got a helpful new question to ask. When working with students whose behavior makes you wonder about ADHD, you might start by looking up their age.
As schools focus more on STEM disciplines, teachers strive to help our students master complex STEM concepts.
After all, it’s hard enough to say “magnetic anisotrophy,” much less understand what it is.
Researchers Dane DeSutter and Mike Stieff have several suggestions for teachers. Specifically, they argue that spatial thinking–essential to many STEM concepts–can be enhanced by appropriate gestures.
You have perhaps heard of “forest-bathing,” the Japanese practice of taking in the forest atmosphere to boost health.
For many, the idea has intrinsic appeal. (I work at a summer camp in leafy Vermont, and so am immediately drawn to ideas like these.)
Do we see any neural changes as a result of time spent in the forest?
According to a recent study looking at residents of Berlin, the answer is “yes.”
Those who live in or near forests demonstrate more “amygdala integrity” than those who don’t. In fact, forest-living promotes healthy amygdala development even more than living near parks or other green spaces.
The study itself is quite technical, but the headline message is clear: the place where you live can influence brain development.
As is always true, we have many reasons to pause before we make dramatic changes in response to this study.
First, the authors conclude that living near forest promote “amygdala integrity,” but they don’t say what “amygdala integrity” means. It’s hard to be opposed to “integrity,” but I wish I knew more about this part of the finding.
Second, we should be cautious when evaluating research that supports our own biases. If you–like me–LOVE spending time in the forest, then you’ll be tempted to wave this study about to support your long-held convictions.
“See!” you might cry, “I’ve always told you that forests were good for you and [**whispering**] your amygdala integrity!”
Research that supports our own pet causes can often take advantage of our blindspots. We should be especially careful in promoting it.
Third, there’s an unfortunate history of people getting excited about “nature is really good for your brain” research.
The New York Times got very excited about a study trumpeting the benefits of walking through a forest, despite real concerns about methodology in that study.
…despite these three reservations, I’m inclined to think that the researchers are on to something here. Living in an environment that mirrors our evolutionary heritage might very well be good for our brains’ development.
Recent entries on this blog have focused on the kind of practice that helps students learn best.
(Hint: it rhymes with “retrieval schmactrice.”)
What can researchers tell us about the schedule of that practice?
Imagine that my students are studying three different grammar topics: direct and indirect objects, predicate nominatives and predicate adjectives, and prepositional phrases. How should I organize the practice problems on the syllabus?
I might put those practice problems in chunks: all the in/direct object questions, then all the PN and PA problems, and then the prep phrase problems. (Psychologists call this schedule “blocking,” because students are practicing in blocks.)
Or, I might jumble all the practice problems together: a prep phrase question followed by an indirect object question followed by a predicate adjective problem. (The technical term here is “interleaving.”)
Which schedule works better?
And, does that schedule help both factual learning (grammar) and motor learning (tennis)?
This brief video, starring Bob Bjork, has the answers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=l-1K61BalIA
As a bonus, here’s a study where a college professor tried to interleave material in her classroom.
Back in October, I posted a link to a pro-homework argument. Again today, I’ve stumbled across another–this one summarizing John Hattie’s Visible Learning on the subject.
Author Tom Sherrington makes two general points.
First: the question “does homework help students learn” is too broad. We need to narrow it down. What age student are we discussing? What kind of homework are they doing? What discipline are they studying?
This first point is often worth making. If someone asks you, “Is technology good for learning?” remember that the question is too big to answer sensibly. Likewise: “does gender matter for learning?” Or “can we train brains?”
Research can answer narrow question very well. The bigger the question, the less certain our answer.
Second: the brief answer to the question is: homework is helpful for older students, but not for younger ones.
Of course, as outlined above, that brief answer requires lots of elaboration.
I live in Boston. I’m a Tom Brady fan. But, good heavens, his Brain Training program looks like snake oil.
The website (and, no, I’m not providing a link) uses all the right buzzwords: “brain plasticity,” “personalize,” “money-back guarantee!”
Some of the claims have a surface plausibility. You can, in fact, train your ability to track objects in space. Video games can do that for you, too.
But the idea that all of this comes together to promote “brain speed” and “intelligence” seems laughable. (I don’t know what “brain speed” even means.)
Always remember: Lumosity was fined $2,000,000 for making false claims sounding like these. I suppose it’s possible that Brady’s Brain Team has cracked a code that no one else has. But, it seems mightily unlikely.
I’m so vexed that I’m tempted to make a joke about Deflate-gate. For a Patriots fan, that’s as bad as it gets.
