Yes.
Ask Canada. Or, better still, gather data from 30,000 Canadian high school students.
Category Archives: L&B Blog
February 01, 2017
The brain is an incredible machine with immense potential. When we are born, our brains are wired to learn from, and adapt to, our environment. Given what we know about the brain’s unique malleability in the first years of life, young people’s need for purposeful support and education seems obvious during this period.
However, upon looking at the current state of early childhood education and care, there is a clear mismatch between what is and what should be. In this article, I will touch on how remarkably powerful early education can be, and that through current practices, we are missing a huge opportunity to prepare ourselves for the future.
Brain Science of the Early Years
Within a handful of weeks of conception, even before some mothers know they are pregnant, children’s brains begin forming. By the time a child is born, she has most all of the neurons she will ever have: about 100 billion of them (Perry, 2002). Also occurring before birth is the formation of the first synapses, which are the connections between the neurons. These neural connections allow the brain to learn and function.
Because of this prenatal formation of synapses, incredibly, newborns are able to show a preference towards their mothers’ voices (Querleu, et al., 1984). These prenatal synapses also enable neonates to cry with a cadence that matches that of their mothers’ native language (Mampe, et al., 2009). Even before we are born, we are learning.
Over the first few years of life, the brain continues making connections between the neurons, to the tune of about 700 to 1,000 synapses every second (Center on the Developing Child). The rate of synapse formation peaks between 1 and 2 years of age (Kostović, et al., 1995), and by 2 or 3 years of age, the brain has about twice as many synapses as it will have as an adult (Corel, 1975). Starting at some point in childhood and lasting through adolescence, the brain gradually and systematically prunes away the surplus synapses that are not sufficiently reinforced through experience and behavior (Huttenlocher, 2002).
Here’s the key point: The purpose of the proliferation of synapses, only for them to be pruned away, is to capture and incorporate early experiences. This is, presumably, evolution’s way of allowing us to adapt to our environment. The brain then prunes away the unused synapses, allowing it to function efficiently.
In the same way, a fisherman ensures he makes a catch by casting a wide net. He then reels it in, taking with him only what he needs.
Because this pruning process starts early on, early experiences that are reinforced throughout the pruning process become deeply embedded in the brain’s architecture. This neural architecture then becomes the foundation that supports future learning.
Just as a house is built on a strong foundation, future learning depends on the foundation that is laid in the first years of life. A weak initial foundation does not doom an individual, though attempting to change behavior later on cannot be done as easily.
Investment in Young Children Is Good for Everyone
This quick review of research makes it clear that we must invest in education for young children. Many studies have highlighted that individuals with access to quality early childhood education enjoy both short-term benefits (see Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program which found positive academic gains for students in third, fourth, and fifth grade), and, more importantly, many long-term benefits as well.
There are two often-cited projects that help to make my point: the Abecedarian Project and the Highscope Perry Preschool study.
At 21 years of age, individuals who were enrolled in the Abecedarian program as preschoolers earned higher scores on intellectual and academic measures, attained more years of total education, were more likely to attend a 4-year college, and had lower rates of teenage pregnancy (Campbell, et al., 2002).
At 40 years of age, individuals who passed through the Perry Preschool program, on average, had higher earnings, were more likely to hold a job for a longer period of time, had been convicted of fewer crimes, and were more likely to have graduated from high school than adults who did not go to preschool (Schweinhart, et al., 2005).
Economic studies of investment in early childhood education have also found societal returns on various programs that range from about $7 to $10 per dollar invested (e.g. Reynolds, et al., 2011; Heckman, et al., 2010). The primary sources of societal benefits came through avenues such as increased tax revenues, averted criminal justice system and victim costs, and savings on child welfare, special education, and grade retention.
The benefits both to the individual and to society created by quality early childhood investment are undeniable. No longer does a case need to be made for if we are to invest in young children, but rather, how to invest in young children.
The State of Early Childhood Education
Excellent. We have the science. We have a good understanding of the general trajectory of brain development. We have confirmed that individuals tend to be much better off across the lifespan with quality experiences over the first few years of life. In fact, we have shown again and again that society benefits from early investment in people.
It only makes sense that in the most powerful nation to have ever existed, a country with access to immense resources, we would invest in ourselves at a time when we can make the strongest impact, in order to ensure a strong future.
Well, actually, that may not be the case. In fact, it’s not looking too good. Let’s take a brief look at what is actually happening, and you can decide for yourself.
Early Enrollment
How many of our nation’s young people attend preschool? The quick answer is about half. From 2012 to 2014, only 47% of 3- and 4-year-olds in the US (3,890,000 in total) were enrolled in any preschool (The Anne E. Casey Foundation, 2016). There is a swing of about 8% for families earning at or above 200% of the poverty line (55% of these 3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled) and those earning below 200% of the poverty line (39% enrolled). The enrollment rates of children younger than 3 are, presumably, even lower across the board.
Tragically, children of families earning less are enrolled at lower rates; Studies say that these children stand to gain the most from high-quality intervention (e.g., Karoly, et al., 1998, as cited in Reynolds, et al., 2011).
Though maybe it’s better that only half of young children are enrolled in preschool. The students would not stand to benefit if these preschools were of low-quality. Whether or not this is the case (though especially if it were), we have a phenomenal opportunity to improve the future standing of our nation by creating access to high-quality preschool for more than just half of our young people.
Teacher Pay
To think that so many of the nation’s three- and four-year-olds might not be getting the experiences needed to help them lay the groundwork for their future, for academics, career, and life, leaves me flustered. This feeling is only exacerbated when I learn about the preparation and benefits for those charged with setting these young citizens up for success. First things first: teacher pay.
In June of last year, the Department of Education released a report entitled, “High-Quality Early Learning Settings Depend on a High-Quality Workforce: Low Compensation Undermines Quality.” The name says it all, doesn’t it?
According to this report, the median salary for a preschool teacher in the U.S. is $28,570. That figure jumps up above $50,000 at the kindergarten and elementary levels. This disparity alone creates a disincentive for teachers to pursue a career teaching preschool — or to pursue teaching at all, for that matter.
Even the two states that come the closest to attaining pay parity fall short; teachers in Louisiana and Oklahoma still only earn 84% and 83% of what kindergarten teachers take home, respectively. And in 13 states, preschool teachers earned less than half of the annual wages earned by kindergarten teachers.
What is really spirit-crushing is that in six states (you know who you are), the annual wages for preschool teachers were less than the 2015 poverty threshold for a family of four. Yes, you read that correctly: some preschool teachers qualify as being in poverty.
While improving teacher pay alone won’t evaporate all of our early childhood education woes, it certainly will help to attract and keep talent.
Teacher Preparation
The level of teacher preparation for the preschool centers also leaves much to be desired. As of the June 2016 report, only 24 states have at least one preschool initiative that requires lead teachers to hold a Bachelor’s degree with a specialized concentration in early childhood. Also, across the country, only 45% of all preschool teachers working with children ages three to five have Bachelor’s degrees.
It is hard to make a case for increased pay when teachers are underprepared. Yet, teachers may not become masters of their craft unless there exists some extrinsic incentive to do so, be it increased salary, benefits, prestige, etc. Attempting to improve the field of early childhood education brings with it many problems. While teacher preparation and benefits are only two of the issues, I do not foresee the field progressing without redressing both of them.
Hope…?
Things looked promising back in 2013. President Obama released a plan to provide early education for all Americans. Sounds great, right? The plan incentivized states to expand access to high-quality public preschool for four-year-olds living at or below 200% of the poverty line, done through a cost-sharing program. The plan laid out benchmarks that states needed to meet in order to access funding, including state-level standards for early learning, qualified teachers, and data and assessment systems. The plan would have supported families of young children through other means as well.
However, funding for the “Preschool for All” initiative relied solely on passing a 94% increase on the federal tobacco tax, which may be why the program has not been enacted. However, after first appearing in the 2015 budget proposal, “Preschool for All” has also appeared in the proposed budgets for 2016 and 2017. Take this into consideration with the fact that the word “preschool” appeared in the proposed 2013 budget a grand total of zero times, for now, I find some comfort in knowing it has at least stayed on the national political agenda.
It’s also good to know that investment in early childhood ostensibly has bipartisan support. According to a 2016 report from the Education Commission for the States, for example, in the 2015-16 school year, Republican governors in 22 states and Democratic governors in 10 states (and also the policy makers for D.C.) increased funding for preschool programs.
Despite the five states (with governors of both parties) that decided to decrease preschool funding, the recognition of the importance of preschool overall seems to be steadily growing — albeit slowly. From the previous year to the current one, state funding on preschool programs across the country increased by 12%.
Things seem to be moving in the right direction, overall. In the 2013 Preschool for All proposal, the federal government acknowledges that it would “invest critical resources where we know the return on our dollar is the highest: in our youngest children.” Yet, despite knowing these monies have the chance to be the most efficacious, the initiative relies solely on a huge tax increase on tobacco products, of all things. These priorities don’t match up.
If you truly believe that “the return on our dollar is the highest” with a given investment, shouldn’t there be a greater push to make it happen? With funding contingent on nearly doubling the tax of some unrelated product, this plan does not convey the sense of urgency needed to move the needle on early childhood investment.
This isn’t the first time the federal government shot down a proposal to provide broader access to early childhood care, either. The Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971, which would have established a national day care system for working families, was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate. It was, however, vetoed by president Nixon in 1972. (Here is a story from NPR.) In this case, the political climate seemed to be the primary driver in deciding the bill’s fate.
Even though they may not have had the science underscoring the importance of experiences during early childhood, the notion was understood. Nixon had been previously quoted as saying, “What happens to the child from a nutritional standpoint, from an educational standpoint, from an environmental standpoint in the years between one and five may affect that child for the balance of his life regardless of what may happen after that time.” And yet, he signed the veto.
Well, now we have the science confirming what we’ve thought all along. So what are we going to do about it?
Constructive Dissatisfaction
Who’s to say that increasing the federal budget for universal preschool would be the best way to go? I am not promoting any one solution to providing early childhood education and care. Though I am championing the idea that these are extremely formative years. During this time, a groundwork is laid that stays with an individual across the lifespan. Ensuring that young people have quality experiences during this time stands to benefit everyone.
We don’t have all of the answers yet, but we do know that our notion of daycare as it has historically been, simply ensuring the physical and perhaps mental well-being of young children, neglects to capitalize on what the science has revealed about this period.
As cognition comes online in the first years of life, it is at its most malleable. Learning is a gradual process; future learning depends on past learning, new experiences build on previous ones. Science has made clear that experiences during this time can have lifelong consequences. We know that educational investments are most efficacious during this period, and without these critical investments, potential is lost.
Though don’t get me wrong, I am trying to not use alarmist hyperbole in an attempt to garner support for the cause. Life will go on regardless of what happens in this arena, just as it has. Children born to families with access will continue to enjoy quality early experiences; not much would change for them either way. And individuals whose first years of life lack these quality experiences will continue to enter kindergarten and first grade already at a disadvantage, just as they have been doing all along.
Jack Shonkoff, director at the Center on the Developing Child, often uses the phrase “constructive dissatisfaction” to describe what he hopes people would feel when presented with the reality of the system currently in place to educate and care for our youngest citizens. He hopes that the discontentment created by the recognition of the discrepancy between what we know ought to be taking place and what is actually taking place would provide the impetus for action.
I hope that you, like me, are constructively dissatisfied. Change won’t be easy. Nor do we know exactly what it will take to ameliorate the preschool problem. Though we do know that it needs to happen. The science is clear: investing in young people is a no-brainer.
References
The Anne E. Casey Foundation. (2016). Young children not in school. Retrieved from: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/9010-young-children-not-in-school?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1443,1218,1049,995,932/any/17975,17976
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42-57.
Center on the Developing Child. Brain Architecture. Retrieved from: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/brain-architecture/
Corel, J. L. (1975). The postnatal development of the human cerebral cortex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Department of Education. (2016). High-quality early learning settings depend on a high-quality workforce: low compensation undermines quality. Retrieved from: https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/earlylearning/files/ece-low-compensation-undermines-quality-report-2016.pdf
Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. A., & Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1), 114-128.
Huttenlocher, P. R. (2002). Neural plasticity. Harvard University Press.
Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. M. S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, C. P., et al. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don’t know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Kostović, I., Judaš, M., Petanjek, Z., & Šimić, G. (1995). Ontogenesis of goal-directed behavior: Anatomo-functional considerations. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 19(2), 85-102.
Ludden, J. (2016, October 13). How Politics Killed Universal Child Care In The 1970s. Retreived from: http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497850292/how-politics-killed-universal-childcare-in-the-1970s.
Mampe, B., Friederici, A. D., Christophe, A., & Wermke, K. (2009). Newborns’ cry melody is shaped by their native language. Current Biology,19(23), 1994-1997.
Parker, E., Atchison, B., & Workman, E. (2016). State pre-k funding for 2015-16 fiscal year: National trends in state preschool funding. 50-state review. Education Commission of the States.
Perry, B. D. (2002). Childhood experience and the expression of genetic potential: What childhood neglect tells us about nature and nurture. Brain and Mind, 3(1), 79-100.
Querleu, D., Lefebvre, C., Titran, M., Renard, X., Morillion, M., & Crepin, G. (1984). Discrimination of the mother‘s voice by the neonate immediately after birth. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive Biology,13(2), 125-134.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., White, B. A., Ou, S. R., & Robertson, D. L. (2011). Age 26 cost–benefit analysis of the child‐parent center early education program. Child Development, 82(1), 379-404.
Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: the High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2014). Outcome evaluation of Washington state’s early childhood education and assistance program. Retrieved from: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1576/Wsipp_Outcome-Evaluation-of-Washington-States-Early-Childhood-Education-and-Assistance-Program_Report.pdf
The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2013, February 13). Fact sheet: President Obama’s plan for early education for all Americans. Retrieved from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/13/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-plan-early-education-all-americans
January 29, 2017
Executive functioning (EF) is a burgeoning research area for psychologists, neuroscientists, and educators. For some, EF might seem like the cognitive science flavor of the week. But for others, its study is uncovering a significant piece of the puzzle for how we learn, feel, and act. And those latter folks have a lot to show for it.
In fact, the mainstream interest in EF that has developed over the last two decades may be best summarized by typing “executive functioning” into the search bar on Amazon.com. Here you’ll find a wealth of books illustrating scattered, messy, and forgetful youth. In these works, authors offer parents and educators a pathway to better understand those children that forget their homework, fidget through class, and get lost in thought when they’re supposed to be finishing chores.
Yet while the disorganized adolescent is certainly one component of executive functions in action (or inaction), it merely scratches the surface of what research is uncovering. And with business booming in the EF world, so to speak, it is now more important than ever to take a step back and examine some of the ways that EF research is being applied in classrooms and households.
What is EF?
Executive functioning is an umbrella term that includes the cognitive processes of attention, self-regulation, mental flexibility (the ability to transition from or between one thought or action to another), and working memory [1].
We use EF when we do mental math to calculate a waiter’s tip; when we remember to raise our hand instead of blurting out an answer; when we attend to a science lecture; and when we describe the same event from the varying perspectives of multiple people.
Studies continue to uncover just how entrenched these processes are throughout the lifespan. EF is linked to several positive developmental outcomes, such as school readiness in early childhood [2] and the development of both crystallized and fluid intelligence in middle childhood [3].
Weak EF skills, on the other hand, go far beyond a messy backpack. Low EF has been found to predict difficulties with mathematics [4], externalizing problem behaviors in middle childhood [5], and harsh parenting in adulthood [6]. Challenges with EF also appear to play a role in a number of developmental disorders, such as ADHD and Autism [7].
Imaging studies show that the frontal lobe of the brain is the EF powerhouse, with the most rapid development of these skills occurring in early childhood [8]. While all children are born with the capacity to develop their EF, actual skill growth requires some degree of explicit practice and modeling. For this reason, much of the mainstream EF literature is geared toward K-8 parents and educators. The Harvard Center on the Developing Child, for example, offers a variety of strategies to support children’s EF growth. Picture sorting games for toddlers, memory games like Simon Says for kindergarteners, and fantasy role-play throughout elementary school serve this purpose.
Next Step: Step Back
There is little doubt that executive function skills exist or that they provide an important cognitive foundation for development. But a critical lens is essential when we begin to take empirical EF knowledge and apply it to youth.
In particular, let us tread lightly when we make a qualitative assumption about a child’s skill level, or how to improve it.
How can we be mindful of this caveat in daily practice? A good start is to question the tendency for EF skills to be dichotomized as high or low, good or bad. Of course, some children have different EF skills than others. But the growing instinct to take the attentive, obedient child and the fidgety, distracted child and fit them into either side of this dichotomy risks overlooking important individual contexts.
Imagine middle school student Joe. Joe lives in a high-crime neighborhood but attends a high-resource school in the next town over. As a result of his home environment, Joe has learned to self-regulate in ways that heighten his vigilance and attention to seemingly unimportant details. He is hyper aware of sights and sounds in the distance that, at home, imply an approaching stranger. In his classroom, however, Joe’s attention and self-regulation skills are less fitting, as the distant sound he is attending to instead of his math lesson is simply another student walking the hallway. Compared to his peers, who do not navigate such contrasting environments each day, Joe’s EF skill level concerns his teacher.
In this scenario, Joe is functional at home (high EF) yet distractible and inattentive at school (low EF). And if we can only fit Joe into the dichotomy of high or low EF, instead of on a fluid spectrum, his low-EF presentation at school is likely to make that call.
The factors that engender the presentation of high or low EF skills is an important distinction to make. Here, Joe’s distraction is different from his classmate Jane’s, which is a result of her ADHD. Accordingly, the support system that each needs is also different.
A crucial step toward accurately qualitatively assessing children’s EF, especially in schools, is therefore to attend to the interactions between the person and the world within which a child is situated. Before we call in the specialist, before we assign remediation, before we purchase the neurotraining software, let’s ask such questions as what are the social rules, values, and stressors that this child is navigating among?
Because for some children, a workbook of puzzles and concentration exercises ordered from Amazon may be enormously helpful. But for others, a consideration of context, resources, and resiliency is the better route.
1. Best, J.R. & Miller, P.H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Development, 81(6), 1641-1660.
2. Blair, C. & Razza, R.P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78(2), 647-663.
3. Brydges, C.R., Reid, C.L., Fox, A.M. & Anderson, M. (2012). A unitary executive function predicts intelligence in children. Intelligence, 40(5), 458-469
4. Toll, S.W.M, Van der Ven, S.H.G, Kroesbergen, E.H. & Van Luit, J.E.H. (2011). Executive functions as predictors of math learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(6), 521-532.
5. Woltering, S., Lishak, V., Hodgson, N., Granic, I. & Zelazo, P.D. (2016). Executive function in children with externalizing and comorbid internalizing behavior problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(1), 30-38.
6. Deater-Deckard, K., Wang, Z., Chen, N. & Ann Bell, M. (2012). Maternal executive function, harsh parenting, and child conduct problems. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(10), 1084-1091.
7. Craig, F., Margari, F., Legrottaglie, A.R., Palumbi, R., de Giambattista, C. & Margari, L. (2016). A review of executive function deficits in autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment,12, 1191-1202.
8. Brydges, C.R., Reid, C.L., Fox, A.M. & Anderson, M. (2012). A unitary executive function predicts intelligence in children. Intelligence, 40(5), 458-469.
January 27, 2017
Recently, I linked to a study suggesting potential downsides to bilingualism: in at least this one study, bilingual students were less successful with metacognition than monolingual students.
In that post, I noted that this one detriment doesn’t mean that bilinguals are “bad at thinking” in some broad way, or that bilingual education is necessarily a bad idea. Instead, that study was one interesting data point in a large and complex discussion.
Well, that discussion has gotten even larger and more complex. A research team at the University of Montreal has explored the neural mechanisms that help adult bilinguals focus on some information without being distracted by other kinds of information.
Neuroscience is always complicated, but the simple version is this: bilinguals use more efficient networks to maintain focus on a particular information stream.
In other words: we’ve got research showing both advantages (efficient attention processing) and disadvantages (reduced metacognition) to bilingualism. So, what should we do?
In the end, teachers and parents can draw on research to explore these questions, but we must put many conflicting pieces together to draw the wisest conclusions.
January 25, 2017
Data Informed Instruction
Early Steps
There are a few key steps to effectively incorporating MBE (Mind, Brain & Education) ideas and concepts into one’s daily teaching routine. The first key is the low hanging fruit, namely, educating oneself on the research about learning and the brain and what the research suggests are effective pedagogies. If you are reading this blog, you are probably already familiar with one fantastic resource for such information (shameless plug warning!)) – www.learningandthebrain.com
There are certainly plenty of resources out there and I strongly encourage you to seek them out. This first step is critical and has become easier in the last few years as more and more of the actual research is available online and more and more has been written for teachers as the target audience.
The second key step involves actually trying something new in your classroom, whether it is using more retrieval practice exercises [1], incorporating movement [2] or perhaps shifting to a more student-centered model for class discussions [3].
Quantum Leaps
But wait, your work is not done! Trying something new based on the conclusions of a research paper you read is certainly a big step but how will you know that the change you made was effective? What is your evidence that the change you incorporated actually improved student learning? THIS is the difficult part.
Analyzing the impact or effect of a new pedagogy is quite complex and requires the collection and analysis of data. While you may not be able to perform a double-blind controlled experiment–the gold standard in scientific research–you CAN analyze the impact of your intervention and use data to inform your teaching practice going forward.
So how do you collect data that can help you improve your teaching practice?
I have found that one of the most useful tools for collecting data is one of the easiest to set up and use, but is frequently one of the least likely to be used by teachers – videotaping your class.
Watching a videotape of your class and objectively analyzing the tape for evidence of improved learning can be extremely enlightening, illuminating and humbling.
- Did I really only give Hermione 2 seconds of wait time before I moved on to Draco?
- Were the students really trying to take notes, listen to me deliver content and participate in the conversation simultaneously?
- Did I really shake my head in disapproval as Luke responded to my question with an answer that was way off base?
I have yet to find a teacher who enjoys watching himself/herself on video but have found that most teachers who actually go through with it find the experience to be incredibly informative. Watching your video with a trusted colleague or Critical Friends group can be even more thought provoking and lead to fruitful conversations about teaching and learning.
Data 2.0
I have been playing around with an exciting new tool for data collection lately that has the potential to make the time consuming analysis of videotape seem like a thing of the past. The app does a deep dive into an audio recording from class and provides me with nearly immediate data to analyze.
Here’s how it works: At the beginning of class I start an audio recording of the class on my phone and hit stop when the class is over. In the current iteration of the app, I upload the audio file to be analyzed and within an hour or so, I receive a report back on the class. Right now, the report includes data in 5 minute increments on:
- My talking speed (words per minute)
- How many questions I ask
- The types of questions I asked – How? vs Why? vs What?
- Percentage of the time that I was talking vs. the students were talking
Questions that I have been able to think more critically about with this data include:
- Was my student-centered class discussion really as student-centered as I thought?
- Am I asking questions that require surface level knowledge (“what”) or ones that will lead to more critical thinking on the part of my students (“why,” “how,” “if”)?
- Am I speaking too fast when giving instructions as I set up an activity?
The app is still in its development phase and there are bugs to be worked out before it will be available to a wider audience; but if you are interested in participating in the pilot, you can sign up here. Of all the data collection tools out there, I think that this app has the potential to be an incredibly valuable tool for teachers as they attempt to evaluate the impact of changes in their practice.
For all of its potential uses, I do realize that their are potential dangers with the collection of this type of data. Who initiates the collection of the data? What if an evaluator or administrator wants to use the data? What are the privacy concerns about collecting this type of data? Who has access to the files and data?
All of these questions are important ones that need to be fleshed out to be certain; however, I believe that if properly used, this app has the potential to be a powerful tool for teachers who want to use data to inform their teaching as they incorporate new strategies and pedagogies.
- http://www.retrievalpractice.org/
- Donna Wilson, Move your body, grow your brain, March 12, 2014 [link]
- Goldschmidt, M., Scharfenberg, F. J., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). Instructional efficiency of different discussion approaches in an outreach laboratory: Teacher-guided versus student-centered. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 27-36. [link]
January 24, 2017
Harvard’s Initiative for Teaching and Learning has posted videos of their most recent conference. The topic: interactivity.
As you listen to these Harvard professors, you might find yourself thinking: their students, and their teaching problems, sound a lot like my students and my teaching problems.
Pro tip: each video begins with a very generous introduction. If you skip ahead 3-5 minutes, you’ll get to the good stuff much more quickly…
January 22, 2017
I sense that the tide is beginning to turn on the knowledge-versus-skills debate, ‘21st Century’ or otherwise. There is an increasingly confident voice shouting a phrase that teachers have shouted for the few thousands of years that there have been teachers: knowledge is really important.
Yes, even in this Googleable world, knowledge is important. We could patiently wait for the “importance of knowledge” pendulum to swing back, or we could, as evidence-informed professionals, boldly provide an epistemic nudge [1].
This post is a concise argument for the importance of knowledge, and offers some research informed ideas for teachers on how to build it.
I recently heard Robert Pondisco, senior fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, give a wonderful talk at ResearchED DC on the importance of a recommitment to teaching knowledge. During his talk, Pondisco eloquently painted the picture of President Obama during his first Inaugural Address, glancing down the length of the Mall to the Lincoln Memorial where Martin Luther King Jr. said those famous words not that long ago.
And then Obama delivered the words in this clip. It was a powerful moment in American history. And Pondisco posed the question: what knowledge would children need to have to understand the significance of these words at this moment? Would they have this knowledge? How would they have got in? Who might have it and who might not? How does this fit in the existing inequality gap? Pondisco’s questions offer a fascinating thought experiment into the importance of knowledge.
Acknowledge the limits of active working memory
Active working memory can hold fewer things for less time than most people realize. Though it is hard to measure, 7 things for 30 seconds for adults is a well agreed upon estimate [2]. For children the numbers are lower. And there is a trade off too – we can hold more things but for progressively less time.
How do these limitations fit my argument?
Having knowledge stored in long term memory frees up the active working memory to more effectively help with higher order thinking tasks. In other words, having stored knowledge helps us think.
Even project based learning needs knowledge
What about things like project based learning (PBL): the antithesis of the “lecture, lecture, test” mode of teaching? How important is it to be very purposeful in teaching knowledge when we want students to be on a voyage of independent exploration? It turns out that explicitly teaching knowledge in very deliberate ways is extremely important for PBL: make-or-break important, in fact.
I will tuck deeply into the deficiencies of PBL at a later date. But the crux of the research-supported argument is that for project based learning to have any measure of success, independent inquiry needs to be balanced with didactic instruction. Without foundational information, students lack sufficient knowledge and skills to be able to engage with the task.
In fact, failing to provide adequate support for knowledge and skills may actually contribute to the achievement gap, as students from disadvantaged backgrounds often enter school with deficiencies in knowledge and skills that are necessary for success in the project [3, 4, 5].
Part of pedagogical content knowledge, that highly interlinked combination of subject knowledge and how to teach it, is to know exactly what knowledge scaffolding students need in order to successfully launch into a project. So if we want to create great projects, which we do, we also need to be great at teaching knowledge – and great at discerning what knowledge that needs to be.
Teaching for stickiness
No matter where in the spectrum from direct-instruction-focused to project-focused we happen to be teaching, we need to get content knowledge to reliably stick in long-term memory. Fortunately there is robust research to guide us here. It suggests both things we should do and should not do.
Things Not To Do
(1) rereading notes
A trip down the aisles of Staples in August confirms what we already know – students love highlighters. But research suggests that the staple of studying, rereading notes or the textbook, is a terrible way to study. It tends to lead to what Brown, Roediger and McDaniel call “the illusion of fluency” [6], where students become so familiar with the text that they believe they know it before they actually do.
(2) misusing flashcards
Similarly, students tend to use flashcards in entirely the wrong way – which is hard for such a simple device. They tend to turn them over too quickly to see the answer. The key part is how one lingers in the moment of not knowing. The key part is the moment before you turn it over. Flashcards work best when students ponder difficult questions, even when the answers prove elusive.
Things To Do
(1) retrieval practice
Retrieval practice is this idea of trying to recall knowledge from memory. Even if a student is unable to, research suggests that the act of trying helps memory storage and recall. Retrieval practice can take many forms: self testing, proper use of flashcards or online tools such as Quizlet, or taking a sheet of paper and writing out everything you know on a subject.
But I am sure you can be creative and add to this list. The key is having students try deeply to recall, then having them check this against their notes or model answers.
(2) spacing
There is great research around the spacing effect. That is, students should study, leave a gap, then study again. We can, for example, coach students to space their studying rather than use massed studying. Massed studying does not lead to durable learning.
Instead, allowing your memory to get a bit rusty between study sessions makes the next study session more challenging. In doing so, it helps create knowledge that is both more durable and more flexible. This is a concept that Clark and Bjork call “desirable difficulty” [7].
But what is the optimal spacing gap for your students, your subject, and the content you are teaching? This is a great idea for you to play with and do your own disciplined inquiry. (You might check out Scott MacClintic’s forthcoming article on gathering classroom data for suggestions.)
(3) formative assessments
Replace pop quizzes with no- or low-stakes formative assessments. As you give these quizzes, say something along the lines of, “this is for you to figure out where you are, for me to figure out where you are, and for us both to adjust what we do accordingly.” This technique is retrieval practice plus. A further benefit is that more of the brain restructuring associated with learning occurs when we struggle and when we get things wrong [8, 9]. Getting things wrong is an important part of learning, and we need to craft no- or low-stress opportunities for this to happen.
(4) interleaving
Interleaving is a way to deliberately build the spacing effect into how you design your courses. Instead of starting the year with unit one, followed, perhaps, by unit two then unit three, there is an alternative way to organize things that will promote learning. After moving on to a new unit, plan on revisiting the core knowledge at least a couple more times at spaced intervals later on [10].
(5) pre-testing
“Research suggests that starting a unit of study with a pre-test helps create more enduring learning. It appears to give students something on which to hang subsequent information. This test should, of course, not be graded, or if it is, it should be graded for effort rather than correctness.
The other point of this pre-test is to give the teacher an idea of where the level of the class generally is, and what knowledge each individual student brings with them already, so that the teacher can tailor subsequent classes to best match the needs of the class. It is important to avoid seeding boredom, and to avoid the potential skipping of foundational knowledge that could prevent future learning. These are two common toxic effects on learning” [11].
A thought on how these suggestions link to assessment
Since a little kid, I have always enjoyed words. Some are more fun to play with than others, of course, but one of the best is ‘facile.’ We often use it to refer to someone who appears so good at something they do it with an effortless ease. But its more nuanced meaning is to refer to a demonstration of thinking that at first glance seems neat, concise and elegant, but which on closer inspection is only neat, concise and elegant because it is oversimplistic, itself lacking in nuanced details.
So this article, I believe, leads us to a future one that needs to be written: how do we avoid facile demonstrations of knowledge by our students? How do we craft assessments that steer students away from this? Or, as Rob Coe and David Didau put it, where will students think hard in this lesson? But in the time before this second article is written, I encourage you to explore this idea yourself. And if you have ideas as to what should go in such an article, please let us know.
- Thank you, Troy Dahlke, for this playful term
- Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory?. Progress in Brain Research, 169, 323-338. [link]
- Education Endowment Foundation Analysis [link]
- Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. [link]
- Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational psychologist, 48(3), 169-183. [link]
- Brown, P. C., Roediher, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Clark, C. M., & Bjork, R. A. (2014). When and why introducing difficulties and errors can enhance instruction. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying the Science of Learning in Education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. [link]
- See this accessible research summary from Robert Bjork at UCLA
- Moser, J. S., Schroder, H. S., Heeter, C., Moran, T. P., & Lee, Y. H. (2011). Mind Your Errors Evidence for a Neural Mechanism Linking Growth Mind-Set to Adaptive Posterror Adjustments. Psychological Science, 21(2), 1484-1489. [link]
- Blasiman, R. N. (2016). Distributed Concept Reviews Improve Exam Performance. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 46-50. [link]
- Whitman, G. and Kelleher, I. (2016). Neuroteach: Brain science and the future of education. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
January 21, 2017
January 18, 2017
Is a man’s amygdala larger than a woman’s? And: why does it matter?
The amygdala is central to neural networks that process strong negative emotions: especially fear and anger. Because psychological studies have shown gender differences in the expression of these emotions, researchers have hypothesized that men might have a larger amygdala, on average, than women do.
That is, gendered behavior might have a biological foundation in a gendered brain.
According to a recent meta-analysis of 46 studies: not so much. Lise Eliot’s research team found no statistically significant difference between male and female amydalae.
(More precisely: men’s amygdalae are–on average–10% larger than women’s; but, men’s BRAINS are–on average–10% larger than women’s. So–relative to brain size–there is no meaningful difference.)
Of course, male and female brains are not identical. And: behavioral differences between genders are important.
However, if Eliot’s results hold up, we can no longer say that these behavioral differences result from meaningfully different amygdala sizes.
January 18, 2017
Research into the benefits of bilingualism has gotten lots of attention in recent years. For example, some scholars argue that being bilingual protects our cognitive dexterity as we age.
However, a recent study suggests a potential downside for bilinguals. Folke et. al. find that, compared to their monolingual peers, young bilingual adults have a harder time with metacognitive processing — that is, analyzing their own cognitive performance.
If further research supports this finding, then teachers and scholars will have to add this potential short-term cognitive detriment to their calculus as they consider long-term cognitive benefits.
To be clear: this research does not show that being bilingual is cognitively bad, or that bilingual education is a bad idea. Instead, it offers one potentially interesting data point for a complex discussion — a discussion that must consider benefits, detriments, and many, many unknowns.